Do 320kbps mp3 files really sound better? Take the test
noiseaddicts.com
Do 320kbps mp3 files really sound better? Take the test
1–10 of 56 posts
Re: Do 320kbps mp3 files really sound better? Take the test
#2Looks like I chose the higher one but you are right, hardly any difference.
Re: Do 320kbps mp3 files really sound better? Take the test
#3Much more interesting test:
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2012/06/the-great-mp3-bitra...
And the outcome:
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2012/06/concluding-the-grea...
Re: Do 320kbps mp3 files really sound better? Take the test
#4The difference is tiny but just about audible.
To my ears neither sounded like a good quality recording and I think that's what made it so hard to tell the difference. Even with cheap speakers, it's easy to spot compression artifacts in poorly encoded audio but in these samples the drum tracks on both sound "mashed". That might be an instrumental trait but it sounds more like a production or postprocessing error to me.
Re: Do 320kbps mp3 files really sound better? Take the test
#5Asking 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.
Re: Do 320kbps mp3 files really sound better? Take the test
#6Obviously for the author's signal source, the original CD sound tracks (sampled at 44.1 KHz * ) would limit the importance of a change from 128 to 320 kbps.
* Corrected units
Re: Do 320kbps mp3 files really sound better? Take the test
#7Much more interesting test: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2012/06/the-great-mp3-bitra... And the outcome: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2012/06/concluding-the-grea...
Again, not an ABX test. No wonder the first file did best - it sounded most like the first file. You can't do listening tests without a labelled original to compare to.
Re: Do 320kbps mp3 files really sound better? Take the test
#8Obviously for the author's signal source, the original CD sound tracks (sampled at 44.1 KHz * ) would limit the importance of a change from 128 to 320 kbps. * Corrected units
No, this is wrong. CDs are sampled at 44.1khz with 16-bit samples, making for (calculates) 706kbps. And that's ignoring stereo.
Re: Do 320kbps mp3 files really sound better? Take the test
#9If you have quality headphones I don't think it's very hard. On earbuds, or laptop speakers, almost impossible. Put it on a real stereo and you will also be able to.
Perhaps the fact that music is now being produced and optimized to sound good on tinny speakers is altering what we perceive to be a "good sound."
Re: Do 320kbps mp3 files really sound better? Take the test
#10Yup, tested this before. Also with quite good hardware (sound card, circumaural quality headphones), between 128kbps and 192 you're already not sure whether there a difference or not, but anything above 192 is really wasted effort.