mp3s

[the kid]

I know there has been various chat before about MP3 bit rates

HERE http://www.noiseaddicts.com/2009/03/mp3-sound-quality-test-128-320/ is one is encoded at 128kbps and the other is encoded at 320kbps.

 

Do you hear the difference ?

Did you get the answer you were expecting ?

 

 

I heard some difference but I apparently "preferred" 128.

[paulears]

I'm pretty sure that bit rate isn't the be all and end all to subjective quality - the method of producing the MP3 has a lot to do with it. I can't really describe what I heard in words - it wasn't noise, or distortion differences - far more subtle - and the best I can do is 'open' - a bit more 'clarity' - but these are such subjective words. Perhaps I just like what I call open and clarity. It's a bit like people who use plug-ins to re-create tape saturation, and put tiny amounts of compression on their sound sources - I prefer many tracks to be uncompressed apart from maybe vocals - but that too could be more openness with clarity? I don't know?

[Bobbsy]

I picked the 320kbps one without really having to think about it. The 128k file was more "muffled" or "woolly" sounding.

 

Of course the REAL test would be to slip in an uncompressed wave file for comparison--though the longer buffering time might give it away.

 

Besides the files themselves, your monitoring system would have an influence here. I happened to be in my home studio and listened on my proper (but 35 year old) floor standing studio monitors. I'd be curious to repeat the experiment on some of the freebie airline handout earbuds we have around the house.

[laolu]

Boy, that was hard. I played both clips several times and didn't hear a difference. And I always thought I've (still) good ears. :** laughs out loud **:

On the other hand, I only listened via some crappy PC speakers and my soundcard isn't High End either.

I'll do some more listening and experimenting. Even the 320kbs-mp3 vs .wav test isn't easy, unless you use a better setup than the one I was using.

Norbert

[david.elsbury]

Hmmm. I preferred the 128k file over the 320k... !

Listening on ipod earbuds.

 

I agree with Paul, it sounded more open and clear.. I wonder if the 128k file was louder than the 320k file? Haven't loaded them into an editor to compare.

 

David

[Modge]

Must be a matter of playback equipment. I have some ex BBC monitors I picked up(cheaply!) from the pebble mill closing down auction and they made it fairly easy for me to tell. More "Detail" for want of a better term in the 320k sample.

[Paul O]

A few years ago I tried encoding a track using various bit rates; 96,128,160,192,256 and 320kbps. To my ears using the reasonable speakers I have here I could hear clear quality improvements up to 192kbps, then a tiny improvement at 256kbps and I couldn't hear any difference at 320kbps. Hence after this I started encoding things at 192kbps minimum unless they need to be emailed.

 

It's very dependant on the quality of the encoding software, the quality of your playback equipment and your hearing.

[Alec]

Indeed, plenty of factors. But with relatively cheap disk space these days, it's 320kbps all the way for me now. Made the mistake of originally ripping at 128kbps years ago, but quickly spotted the weakness of these when listening critically on good kit. Was tempted recently to go flac, but everything becomes harder (more limited support, harder to tag) that the "compromise" of 320kbps looked pretty acceptable.

 

I do much of my listening at home on a PC with the output of its soundcard plugged into my mid-range hifi. Generally sounds OK. But burn a CD from a 320kbps mp3 and play back on a CD player through the same hifi and the difference is astonishing, especially at the bottom end.

 

It's amazing, though, how many people just don't hear poor encoding artefacts. I do quite a bit of live engineering work and one chap who I works with downloads clips from YouTube & suchlike and burns them onto CD for pre/inter-set music. To my ears it's just painful to listen to, but he just doesn't hear it! Needless to say, I make sure I don't use his services any more!

 

But, then again, recent research appeared to indicate that people were starting to get so accustomed to listening to low bitrate mp3s that in blind testing, they preferred the sound. Maybe it shouldn't be surprising that you like what you're used to listening to. But hard to believe that they really prefer that to full-range uncompressed audio. Does make you wonder, though, about the 94/24 expectations we have these days!

[Bobbsy]

Indeed, plenty of factors. But with relatively cheap disk space these days, it's 320kbps all the way for me now.

 

I was with you up to where you said "320kbps". Disk storage is SO cheap now (I bought a TB for under $80 recently) I see no reason to mess around with MP3 at all. I just stick to uncompressed wave files for everything--and only use MP3 as a distribution format as it was originally intended.

[Alec]

I was with you up to where you said "320kbps". Disk storage is SO cheap now (I bought a TB for under $80 recently) I see no reason to mess around with MP3 at all. I just stick to uncompressed wave files for everything--and only use MP3 as a distribution format as it was originally intended.

 

But, like I said, the convenience and ubiquity of MP3 is what wins out for me in practise, despite the fact that I know they're a compromised format technically:

 

My 160GB iPod Classic will store my entire mp3 collection at 320kbps with space for growth - it wouldn't if in FLAC/WAV

My iPod will play mp3 - it wouldn't if in FLAC/WAV

As far as I can see, you can't tag wav files. However good your naming conventions are, the ability to tag mp3 files is fantastically useful.

mp3 files are still quicker to copy and move around than wav files.