Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Do 320kbps mp3 files really sound better? Take the test

noiseaddicts.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–56 of 56 posts

Re: Do 320kbps mp3 files really sound better? Take the test

#51

Post by lloeki »

lmm wrote: post #5

Asking which file sounds "better" is meaningless; some distortions sound good. The proper way to do this is an ABX test, where you compare both to a known original, and ask which sounds more like the original .

> Asking which file sounds "better" is meaningless

Indeed the phrasing of the question poses problem. The real question should rather be something like "what is the most faithful"? ANd without the source to compare to, that would be reducing comparisons to what a tester has experienced previously.

Yet I answered both confidently and correctly, without very much special audio equipment (Dell XPS 8300 stock sound card, and a cheap Sennheiser HD212 Pro).

What made me confident is I know what to look for†. If I did not I would have had to make a "what sounds best" judgement.

(spoiler alert if you want to take the test yourself)

† MP3 has a hard time encoding some corner-case specific stuff. Here the rattling at 0:06 produces an artifact that is a dead giveaway. Cymbals at 0:11 are more subtle but noticeable.

Re: Do 320kbps mp3 files really sound better? Take the test

#52

Post by aes256 »

microtonal wrote: post #11

I picked the higher one correctly. Though, the difference is barely audible on my laptop (MacBook Pro aka worthless DAC, but quite ok Sennheiser microphones). Personally I like lossless for practical reasons (e.g. conversions without quality loss).

> Personally I like lossless for practical reasons (e.g. conversions without quality loss).

That was the clincher for me. At first my music collection was a mish-mash of different bitrates. I converted the whole lot to the LAME V2 preset (~192kbps VBR) a la the mp3 scene standard, then no sooner had I done that than the standard changed to V0 (~245kbps).

Screw it, I figured. Storage is cheap. Might as well go lossless.

Re: Do 320kbps mp3 files really sound better? Take the test

#53

Post by dromidas »

lloeki wrote: post #51
lmm wrote: post #5

Asking which file sounds "better" is meaningless; some distortions sound good. The proper way to do this is an ABX test, where you compare both to a known original, and ask which sounds more like the original .

> Asking which file sounds "better" is meaningless Indeed the phrasing of the question poses problem. The real question should rather be something like "what is the most faithful"? ANd without the source to compare to, that would be reducing comparisons to what a tester has experienced previously. Yet I answered both confidently and correctly, without very much special audio equipment (Dell XPS 8300 stock sound card,…

Sound was generally just more rich. But yeah the background noise was incredibly noticable. I use SE530's with an audioengine D1 at work since using an integrated soundcard always bleeds motherboard sounds in the audio :/

I read a study a few years back though about how the MP3 encoding artifacts and background noise were so ingrained in culture today that people actually prefer the MP3 encoding artifacts over not having them- Which seems to be supported by this poll. The incorrect choice has a non-trivial lead.

Re: Do 320kbps mp3 files really sound better? Take the test

#54

Post by einmus »

some1else wrote: post #29
andybak wrote: post #21

And the audiophile loons start appearing in the comments: "on high end gear you can hear the difference between a factory and a copied CD.". No. You can't, sir.

Basic DSP knowledge tells us that a digital audio copy is exactly the same quality as the original. Also, testing the difference between 128kbps and 320kbps MP3s over and over again is like drinking warm beer all the time to make sure it's really worse than the cold one.

Audio CD is an old technology. It doesn't have advanced error correction method. With poor quality CD-R, it's true that the quality is not the same.

Re: Do 320kbps mp3 files really sound better? Take the test

#55

Post by ojiikun »

A 10-second sample misses the point of HQ v. LQ: a very few sections of most albums will sound better at HQ. The vast, vast majority of songs will sound the same. The point isn't that HQ is a little better most the time, it's that some of the time it is much better.

LTJ Bukem - Watercoulours comes to mind as a great example of the phenomenon.

Re: Do 320kbps mp3 files really sound better? Take the test

#56

Post by andybak »

einmus wrote: post #54
some1else wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basic DSP knowledge tells us that a digital audio copy is exactly the same quality as the original. Also, testing the difference between 128kbps and 320kbps MP3s over and over again is like drinking warm beer all the time to make sure it's really worse than the cold one.

Audio CD is an old technology. It doesn't have advanced error correction method. With poor quality CD-R, it's true that the quality is not the same.

Excluding from skipping and audible glitches that doesn't sound plausible.

i.e. copying an audio CD can create gross errors but not a more subtle change in audio quality (loss of dynamics/frequencies etc).

If you disagree could you point me towards some evidence?

Post reply on HN