Human ears can't discren the difference for bit rates beyond 128kps

Boozebeard

Boozebeard

Boozebeard

Associate
Joined
22 Jan 2010
Posts
1,480
So I'm reading an article for a legal and ethical unit on my degree course and it contains the line I used for the title. This is a huge pile of bull right?

Edit: That should be discern :D

I probably shouldn't have put this here as it is technically for hardware, so move it if need be. Not that I need to tell you that :P
 
Last edited:
Boozebeard said:
So I'm reading an article for a legal and ethical unit on my degree course and it contains the line I used for the title. This is a huge pile of bull right?
Click to expand...

Yes, depending on age. I used to be able to tell the difference between flac and high bitrate MP3 when concentrating on the high frequencies (cymbals/bells etc) and now I can't. I now mainly listen to music on Spotify.

128bps MP3 has a frequency cut off at around 16KHz where as a CD is 22KHz.
 
Rubbish - my hearing isn't the best any more - but on these sennheiser PC163D (and the HD600) I can plainly hear every little artifact on a 128Kbit MP3 infact even 192-256Kbit can hear the loss of detail on certain frequencies, etc.

Tho if I swap to something like a pair of plantronics its not very obvious heh.
 
I did some tests a few years ago that make interesting viewing.
I might not be able to tell the difference at my age but the article is talking BS.


mp3fulltestweb.jpg
 
Depends on many factors, quality of the original studio recording and the equipment its played back on being the main thing.

If a track or audio sample is poor in the first place then it will never sound any better, no matter how its re coded or formatted, or subsequently processed.

Take an original audio cd for example, its very easy to hear poor engineering, as compared to good, on a decent hi-fi. But on the flip side, there will be no discernible difference on a lower quality system.

When people make records, they are generally engineered toward the mid range of quality.
So those with more responsive playback equipment will not get any benefit.

That is part of the problem with spending a massive amount of cash on a sound system. Theres not that much popular music that is engineered to a high enough standard to really do it justice.
 
mattyfez said:
Depends on many factors, quality of the original studio recording and the equipment its played back on being the main thing.
Click to expand...

But I don't think that is the original argument.
It isn't as if the person said "Human ears can't discern the difference for bit rates beyond 128kps on on Alba stereo with really cheap speakers".
We have to think he is talking about good gear or an average MP3 player and youngsters will be able to hear the full 20hz to 20khz range.
I can hear the difference between 128kps and 320kps with my dodgy ears and I've done it on a blind test over and over.
I couldn't hear the difference between 192 and 320 though.
 
Fair point, I agree there. I must say I too sometimes cannot tell the difference between 192 and 320. I would presume that in these cases it comes down to the origeonal recording quality. As in, its not really possible to 'upscale' an audio track, you can't get any better definition than its source. If the source is low quality then that's what you are pretty much stuck with.
 
A different angle on the discussion, as this is something that really interests me...

Taking the initial question:
"Human ears can't discren the difference for bit rates beyond 128kps"

One could argue the screen analogy, a screen of 22-27 inches there is no real definition difference between a 720p movie and a 1080p movie, however, if you increase the screen size to 50 inches, the difference becomes much more apparent.

So I guess that comes back to the quality of the source material, and the quality of the playback equipment.

A great example is that I have some FLAC files, that sound a lot less dynamic than some 192-320 bit rate mp3's that I have...

I guess the point I am trying to make is, where someone has taken the effort in terms of getting the sound right, a 192 mp3 will not do it justice, presuming you are listening on a reasonable quality playback system.

For example, Michael Jacksons 'BAD' album is very well produced, not that I'm a massive fan but, Dirty Diana, sounds unbelivable on a good system.

I would be very interested to hear the opinions of you guys, as its something I am very interested in.
 
there are loads of threads on this subject. the general conclusion is always yes you can hear the difference if the gear is good enough (and it doesnt have to be expensive gear at that).


Re DMPoole's post, as has been mentioned in previous threads, all that image shows is the high pass filter that's in use when the lame encoder (or whatever mp3 encoder was used) does it's biz. a sharp drop-off at 18khz+ is nothing to worry about, that sort of range is pretty much heard by nobody anyway. drop-off's below that (as his screenshot of the 128kb output shows) is pretty poor but again as i asked in a previous thread, i wasnt convinced that DMpoole used a then current version of whatever mp3 encoder he was using at the time. i don't believe the ceiling is anywhere near that low with modern 128kb encodings. that said, it still illustrates the difference between them :)

for reference, here's a comparison of Lame v1 (~225kb) and Lame v5 (~130k) vs .WAV. the material in question is solsbury hill by Peter Gabriel

solsburyhillanalysismp3.gif
 
Last edited:
I can definitely tell the difference between this and 320Kbs. Often buying MP3's online to mix with, the volume is quieter, the quality is less, the sounds that come from records are different. Could believe someone saying they can't tell the difference between 320 and a WAV, but not this.
 
Infam0us said:
I can definitely tell the difference between this and 320Kbs. Often buying MP3's online to mix with, the volume is quieter, the quality is less, the sounds that come from records are different. Could believe someone saying they can't tell the difference between 320 and a WAV, but not this.
Click to expand...

the volume should never be quieter. That only proves that whoever encoded the music didnt do so using standard encoder settings. The encoded music should be exactly the same volume.
 
I used to think I could hear no difference between 192 kb/s and lossless but was forced to change my mind after upgrading equipment. I'm still getting around to re-ripping my CDs and have told myself I'll never rip in a lossy format again.

I do use lower bitrate mp3 for portable use though.

Regarding how much equipment can have an effect, I once tested my my hearing for frequency range using Speedlink Medusas. I thought I had complete frequency loss above 16khz. Imagine my surprise when repeating the exercise with NS1000s (and subsequently other headphones) and realising that I could hear 20khz +.

Some audio processing can really show up compression artifacts too. I have several tracks that I ripped at 192 kb/s mp3 that sound OK unprocessed. Add Dolby Headphone and suddenly cymbals sound really unpleasantly artificial. Take the same track on CD or lossless with Dolby Headphone and it's fine.
 
I have a friend who is well renown music producer. When he sends me samples of music he always uses 320kbps.

But otherwise I can hear the difference between 128 and 320. 37 year old ears, Soundblaster Music Extream, and semi decent headphones is plenty enough to tell.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom