mp3ornot.com— Test yourself! On my B&W 685 speakers I could only hear a little difference between the two clips, never knew that 128 kbps mp3's where so good!
Mar 24, 2008View in Crawl 4
Interestingly, with just vocals, or an instrument or two, there is a lot of room for data. A full and complex track will require more bit depth. I just encoded test tracks, (one freq at given dB), in lossless and the bitrate was 99-115kbits/sec. The same codec with Andrea Bocelli was 850-900kbits/sec. Another thing, if you really sit and listen, the soundstage- sound placement is flat in any compression.
Sometimes 192 kbps mp3 can be a bit insufficient for very rich content. That's why I personally use VBR, which hovers around 192 kbps, but can jump higher during those passages that contain more complex material. <a class="user" href="http://mp3sforum.com/">http://mp3sforum.com/</a>
This is kind of a trick question. I've done quite a bit of recording over the years, learned a bunch, so let me explain. The human ear can hear up to about 11,000 Hz which represents a frequency over time. And to depict a musical waveform beyond the ear's detection, you need 16 bits of data. The wave is literally a graph of the bits vertically over time (WAV file). This for example would be 16 X 11,000 = 176 kbps. Theoretically anything below this you could hear distortion and above it would sound fine.> For CD quality, the frequency chosen was 44.1 kHz to take roughly 4X the points needed or 4X the capability of the human ear. Add to this 16 bit resolution and stereo so 2 channels of data and you get 44.1 x 16 x 2 = 1411 kbts. Keep in mind, this is still a digitally compressed format - it is simply above what the human ear is supposed to be able to detect - some audiophiles say they need 24 bit resolution to satisfy their ears. Anything below this is compressed more than a CD quality. > So, the reason this is somewhat of a trick is that both files are compressed more than CD quality. If you heard the CD quality file, there is a chance you would perceive it as better.> Most MP3s are done at 128 kbts which results in a file roughly 1/10th the size of the CD WAV file. Typically you will hear more bass and less treble. Easy ways to detect MP3 are Kick and Toms being much louder than normal, perhaps the bass guitar is really noticeably heard rather than something you feel. And the high end stuff sounds hollow. Your favorite guitar solo may not do it for you. Listen to the cymbals, even the snare can sound funny, and hope that you don't have any thing like a trumpet or higher pitched instrument since it can get destroyed.
I didn't notice any difference because the notes being played weren't of a wide dynamic range. When you introduce drums, other instruments and fill the sound spectrum more the difference is very noticeable.
It was faint but still notable. Even with my crappy onboard soundcard but a decent Senheiser PX100 on the other end of the cable.There is a small distortion as Pavarotti lowers tone while the tremolo. Too bad it's not mentioned how they processed the clips (mainly which encoder). But it's true, given a good encoder only few can hear the difference (except so called killer samples).
Well, I've done the test and could tell the difference on my crappy and plastic loudspeakers on my computer desk, and a friend of mine couldn't. So he made me do a blind test repeating it over and over without me seeing which sample he had chosen. I was right all the times!So how come some people won't hear the difference (or do but don't mind the lesser quality)? Maybe your hearing may have deteriorated by the rock concerts er even by too loud listening with your ear buds.But hey, my sight isn't very well and it's hard (and sometimes even impossible) for me to tell the difference between thousands of colours on my computer screen and millions... But I bet Apple wouldn't make a buck selling extremely compressed video content o the iTunes store, so how do they manage by selling compressed audio?
<a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD</a>hybrid Super Audio Cds are what I was thinking of... and while they are technically "one bit" they have a better quality sound than regular audio CDs and allow for 5.1 surround. So yes, not redbook, but better than redbook, can also conform to redbook and the hybrids can be played in most cd players. But yeah, other than that, thanks for agreeing.
justice7Mar 25, 2008
Any Hard Rock / Metal will test your bitrates to the max. Lets be honest here, it has the most going on -- kinda the point.
mothrogMar 26, 2008
...Which has what to do with expectation bias, again?
kerzhawApr 3, 2008
Sorry if I wasn't clear, I was more addressing the issue of the larger file sizes that come with high bitrates
missmyzdtvApr 6, 2008
Interestingly, with just vocals, or an instrument or two, there is a lot of room for data. A full and complex track will require more bit depth. I just encoded test tracks, (one freq at given dB), in lossless and the bitrate was 99-115kbits/sec. The same codec with Andrea Bocelli was 850-900kbits/sec. Another thing, if you really sit and listen, the soundstage- sound placement is flat in any compression.
jeallen0Apr 11, 2008
theres a hugh difference... i noticed right off the bat that the beginning of the clip had a cleaner and crisper sound.
krist0rApr 11, 2008
Sometimes 192 kbps mp3 can be a bit insufficient for very rich content. That's why I personally use VBR, which hovers around 192 kbps, but can jump higher during those passages that contain more complex material. <a class="user" href="http://mp3sforum.com/">http://mp3sforum.com/</a>
agent52Apr 12, 2008
This is kind of a trick question. I've done quite a bit of recording over the years, learned a bunch, so let me explain. The human ear can hear up to about 11,000 Hz which represents a frequency over time. And to depict a musical waveform beyond the ear's detection, you need 16 bits of data. The wave is literally a graph of the bits vertically over time (WAV file). This for example would be 16 X 11,000 = 176 kbps. Theoretically anything below this you could hear distortion and above it would sound fine.> For CD quality, the frequency chosen was 44.1 kHz to take roughly 4X the points needed or 4X the capability of the human ear. Add to this 16 bit resolution and stereo so 2 channels of data and you get 44.1 x 16 x 2 = 1411 kbts. Keep in mind, this is still a digitally compressed format - it is simply above what the human ear is supposed to be able to detect - some audiophiles say they need 24 bit resolution to satisfy their ears. Anything below this is compressed more than a CD quality. > So, the reason this is somewhat of a trick is that both files are compressed more than CD quality. If you heard the CD quality file, there is a chance you would perceive it as better.> Most MP3s are done at 128 kbts which results in a file roughly 1/10th the size of the CD WAV file. Typically you will hear more bass and less treble. Easy ways to detect MP3 are Kick and Toms being much louder than normal, perhaps the bass guitar is really noticeably heard rather than something you feel. And the high end stuff sounds hollow. Your favorite guitar solo may not do it for you. Listen to the cymbals, even the snare can sound funny, and hope that you don't have any thing like a trumpet or higher pitched instrument since it can get destroyed.
dajerntsApr 19, 2008
I didn't notice any difference because the notes being played weren't of a wide dynamic range. When you introduce drums, other instruments and fill the sound spectrum more the difference is very noticeable.
theblablaApr 21, 2008
It was faint but still notable. Even with my crappy onboard soundcard but a decent Senheiser PX100 on the other end of the cable.There is a small distortion as Pavarotti lowers tone while the tremolo. Too bad it's not mentioned how they processed the clips (mainly which encoder). But it's true, given a good encoder only few can hear the difference (except so called killer samples).
dualJun 12, 2008
Well said.
tojoroyAug 24, 2008
it was easyenough to hear the diff b/w an 128and a 320 kbps clip.
dinckAug 26, 2008
Well, I've done the test and could tell the difference on my crappy and plastic loudspeakers on my computer desk, and a friend of mine couldn't. So he made me do a blind test repeating it over and over without me seeing which sample he had chosen. I was right all the times!So how come some people won't hear the difference (or do but don't mind the lesser quality)? Maybe your hearing may have deteriorated by the rock concerts er even by too loud listening with your ear buds.But hey, my sight isn't very well and it's hard (and sometimes even impossible) for me to tell the difference between thousands of colours on my computer screen and millions... But I bet Apple wouldn't make a buck selling extremely compressed video content o the iTunes store, so how do they manage by selling compressed audio?
jmark13Oct 22, 2008
<a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD</a>hybrid Super Audio Cds are what I was thinking of... and while they are technically "one bit" they have a better quality sound than regular audio CDs and allow for 5.1 surround. So yes, not redbook, but better than redbook, can also conform to redbook and the hybrids can be played in most cd players. But yeah, other than that, thanks for agreeing.
gramajDec 8, 2008
Very Good My Man! <a class="user" href="http://www.seksihatunlar.net">http://www.seksihatunlar.net</a><a class="user" href="http://www.ayyildizturk.org">http://www.ayyildizturk.org</a>
Closed AccountDec 11, 2008
I got it, but it wasn't easy I had to listen pretty hard with ipod headphones.
tohukoJan 15, 2009
Muy buen test... el sonido viene en decadencia...