This comparsion doesn't really say that much if you want to measure the perceived quality of the MP3 file. The compression algorithms used in the MP3 format are (as in most other lossy codecs) based on psycho-acoustics. It means that the codec tries to save space by excluding those parts of the sound which are not likely to be perceived by the human ear. The differences you get by comparing waveforms this way are not representative for the audible differences (although there may of course be audible differences, too).
Can you hear the difference between a 128k and 320k mp3?
- Thread starter Brent71
- Start date
This comparsion doesn't really say that much if you want to measure the perceived quality of the MP3 file. The compression algorithms used in the MP3 format are (as in most other lossy codecs) based on psycho-acoustics. It means that the codec tries to save space by excluding those parts of the sound which are not likely to be perceived by the human ear. The differences you get by comparing waveforms this way are not representative for the audible differences (although there may of course be audible differences, too).
4tified
Member
Honestly, I don't think as many people who say they can tell the difference between a lossy vs lossless encoding are telling the truth. I'm sure the people here can do it because of our well-trained ears. But some of those who jump on the bandwagon and state they can easily tell the difference are listening too hard...it's a mind trick. When doing actual blind ABX testing, alot of those folks have no idea what's what...I'll be the first to claim that it's difficult for me to tell the difference sometimes too, and, as always, it depends on your sound system. Nice site to compare and reveal if people really can hear the difference!
AndrewCttrll
New Member
When I first copied my CD collection to my computer (in 2002), I used ABX tests to decide which codec and bitrate to use (in the end I choose Vorbis at 64kbit/s).
Back then, I could hear differences between the uncompressed source and a typical 128kbit/s MP3, but the MP3 encoders have improved since then. I expect that it would be difficult to distinguish the differences now.
Back then, I could hear differences between the uncompressed source and a typical 128kbit/s MP3, but the MP3 encoders have improved since then. I expect that it would be difficult to distinguish the differences now.
AndrewCttrll
New Member
It may be that some of these people are recalling L3enc encoded MP3 files from the late '90s. At 128kbit/s these were easy to distinguish from the original CD. The encoders have improved greatly since then, to the point that a MP3 file encoded with a modern version of LAME at 128kbit/s is much harder to distinguish.
Pstraums
Perez, Oslo - Norway
absolutely acceptable qty both! but it was a very simple (horrible) track, and the person who made this comparison surely made sure the difference was as little as possible.. Normally if you mp3ifizize your CD, it is simply CRAZY to be so cheap to use 128kbps instead of 256/320.... trust me... I had to do most of my cd`s all over again... THAT sux! (damn that takes a LOT of time!!) 
....
Surely theres big difference between 128 and 128... depending of what software u use and what music you compress.... Good advice is to NEVER EVER go below 200! and with the gig (hdd) prices we have 2day, why even BOTHER to go below 320 (or even FLAC, which has become MY chosen format... ok it`s 300megz`a CD, but what the hell.. 500 GIGS costya $100 approx ?............) thats no money at all .... (compared to if f.i. CARS were your hobby?) ;-)
.... Surely theres big difference between 128 and 128... depending of what software u use and what music you compress.... Good advice is to NEVER EVER go below 200! and with the gig (hdd) prices we have 2day, why even BOTHER to go below 320 (or even FLAC, which has become MY chosen format... ok it`s 300megz`a CD, but what the hell.. 500 GIGS costya $100 approx ?............) thats no money at all .... (compared to if f.i. CARS were your hobby?) ;-)
bilboda
Active Member
I've had several mp3 head units and all played lame encoded mp3's. Apparently my Sandick Sansa is not supposed to be able to but I just use it for storage plugged in via usb to the hu. Point is, yep, I can tell 128k vs lame vbr or 320k. My good mp3's are difficult to distinguish from the cd's in the car. My older 128k are easy to pick out. I'm gonna have to downl..er...rerip them. I like foobar2000 for pc playback. It does an excellent job at converting to lame mp3's. Easy click and go and a decent tagger, too.
Brian
An Old Geezer
Yawn, when you can get an MP3 to sound like an original 15ips master call me, or even a good LP. 192 vs 320 is not really relevant as it is only asking which of a bad sounding and duplication process sounds better. Bottom line is neither comes close in quality to what we grew up with and expecting.
Well, if you did some ABX tests maybe you would revise your opinion. MP3s made with decent software and in an appropriate bitrate are not half as bad as many people seem to think. Also, the comparsion with 15 ips tape is not entirely useful; would you bring a reel-to-reel machine on your jogging tour as well? 
Of course the average home stereo setup might have been better in terms of fidelity, say, 25 years ago compared to the cheap all-in-one players lots of people use these days, but let us not forget for example all these really bad compact cassettes we've endured in our lifetime. Even 128 kbps sounds better than many of those...
Of course the average home stereo setup might have been better in terms of fidelity, say, 25 years ago compared to the cheap all-in-one players lots of people use these days, but let us not forget for example all these really bad compact cassettes we've endured in our lifetime. Even 128 kbps sounds better than many of those...
Most of what I've heard is that people are using lossless compression?
Free Lossless Audio Codec – FLAC
Apple Lossless – ALAC (Apple Lossless Audio Codec)
apt-X Lossless
ATRAC Advanced Lossless
Audio Lossless Coding – also known as MPEG-4 ALS
MPEG-4 SLS – also known as HD-AAC
Direct Stream Transfer – DST
Dolby TrueHD
DTS-HD Master Audio
Meridian Lossless Packing – MLP
Monkey's Audio – Monkey's Audio APE
OptimFROG
RealPlayer – RealAudio Lossless
Shorten – SHN
TTA – True Audio Lossless
WavPack – WavPack lossless
WMA Lossless – Windows Media Lossless
Free Lossless Audio Codec – FLAC
Apple Lossless – ALAC (Apple Lossless Audio Codec)
apt-X Lossless
ATRAC Advanced Lossless
Audio Lossless Coding – also known as MPEG-4 ALS
MPEG-4 SLS – also known as HD-AAC
Direct Stream Transfer – DST
Dolby TrueHD
DTS-HD Master Audio
Meridian Lossless Packing – MLP
Monkey's Audio – Monkey's Audio APE
OptimFROG
RealPlayer – RealAudio Lossless
Shorten – SHN
TTA – True Audio Lossless
WavPack – WavPack lossless
WMA Lossless – Windows Media Lossless
ChrisFox
New Member
There is less and less reason to go with mp3's today. I've been in the process of re-ripping to flac. Even if my portable music player didn't support flac, I could trasncode them over just as fast as it takes just to copy the music over.
And to the point of the OP, no I can't hear the difference anymore. But now I don't have too anymore
And to the point of the OP, no I can't hear the difference anymore. But now I don't have too anymore
Dude, haven't you ever heard of a ZIP file?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lossless_data_compression
"Lossless data compression is a class of data compression algorithms that allows the exact original data to be reconstructed from the compressed data. The term lossless is in contrast to lossy data compression, which only allows an approximation of the original data to be reconstructed in exchange for better compression rates."
Brian
An Old Geezer
ZIP files, so 20th century. Any digital music format losses some information compared to the original. While an algorithm may reconstruct missing information the in the file itself is not 100% complete. If it were then there would be no need for the algorithm. Even an analog recording of a musical instrument may not be lossless if the dynamic range is compressed and hence the original information is altered and the dynamic rage information is missing.
There is no data loss whatsoever with a lossless format. Flac files are sonically identical to the raw wave files. Flac is just a data compression method (hence the comparison to ZIP...or RAR or TAR or whatever). The fact that you're compressing an audio file is incidental. When you play back the flac file, it's uncompressed on the fly and you hear exactly what was in the wave file, no less. It does this uncompression at the expense of processing power (so playing flac files requires more CPU time than just playing the wave files). It's a classic computer science space/time tradeoff problem.
Regarding compression, it's unlikely you'll ever hear a completely uncompressed performance of a musical instrument unless you're sitting in the room with the musician. Every recording you hear is going to have some dynamic range compression. Most modern recordings have compression done multiple times over: for each individual instrument, for the mix as a whole, and again for the entire album during mastering. Heck, it's likely you're even hearing compressed sound when you see a band live. For larger venues where every instrument is miked, it's commonplace to run them through rack compressors before sending them out to the PA. Believe it or not, this makes things sound better. Compression is one of the fundamental concepts of sound engineering.
Regarding compression, it's unlikely you'll ever hear a completely uncompressed performance of a musical instrument unless you're sitting in the room with the musician. Every recording you hear is going to have some dynamic range compression. Most modern recordings have compression done multiple times over: for each individual instrument, for the mix as a whole, and again for the entire album during mastering. Heck, it's likely you're even hearing compressed sound when you see a band live. For larger venues where every instrument is miked, it's commonplace to run them through rack compressors before sending them out to the PA. Believe it or not, this makes things sound better. Compression is one of the fundamental concepts of sound engineering.
Of course, but a losslessly compressed file is smaller than an uncompressed file while containing the exact same information. It is as close to the original recording as possible. You're talking about things that have never been possible and probably never will be.
Brian
An Old Geezer
Maybe I'm talking in the abstract but, it does not detract from the fact. An analog recording on a HS 1/2 reel to reel has more information than an lp as it can maintain a larger dynamic range. A digital format can does no have as much dynamic range as an lp and hence contains less information. A lossless file can not contain the same information as an uncompressed file as something has to be removed in some manner to compress the file even if it is a null.
Not all recordings back in the heyday of audio went through compression even as to dynamics with the advent of large width hs tape systems and these come closest to the original acoustic instrument. Once you through a modern pa system into the mix, the concept of an acoustic instrument performance as a point of reference is out the window. Happily there are many classical presentations still live today with no pa system or other sound reinforcement to detract.
Not all recordings back in the heyday of audio went through compression even as to dynamics with the advent of large width hs tape systems and these come closest to the original acoustic instrument. Once you through a modern pa system into the mix, the concept of an acoustic instrument performance as a point of reference is out the window. Happily there are many classical presentations still live today with no pa system or other sound reinforcement to detract.
No, it does. Lossless compression simply packages the information in a way that it takes up less space.
http://www.arturocampos.com/cp_ch1.html#How does compression work?
How does compression work?
"Compression relies on the fact that the data is redundant, that till some extent it was generated following some rules, and that we can learn those rules, and thus predict accurately the data. A compressor can reduce the size of a file by deciding which data is more frequent and assigning it less bits than to less frequent data."
That's fine, but IN THE DIGITAL FORMAT the best we can do is to retain as much of the information we have available IN THE DIGITAL FORMAT. If I have less information in a digital format than I do in an analog format, why would I go and reduce the information in the digital format even more?
Last edited:
