MP3 bit rates debate - can YOU tell?

Whoops, I appear to have lost the text file I put the order for number 2 in. I will have a listen myself and compare the originals to the burnt tracks and figure out which one is which. Bit daft, ah well... Still, I have them for number 1:

Number 1 results said:


1 96k
2 320k
3 128k
4 160k
5 CD (wav)
6 Lossless

Fish99, impressively close but does 160k really sound better than 320k? ;)

Dunky, I think you need to listen again ;)
Click to expand...
 
Awww come on, I got a few of em right. I spotted the one with the lowest quality, the one with the highest quality (ish) and I got #4 spot on. :P

P.S <removed as to not give it way but #5 & #6 tut tut>
 
Last edited:
willd58 said:
tracks downloaded from variouse share programs are clearly different, i thought this was because of the bit rate? are there other factors involved?
Click to expand...

Finally!!!!!!!!!!! :D

Somebody has clocked the REAL reason my low bit rate MP3s are so comparatively good!

Yes, there are factors FAR FAR FAR more important than bit rate!

Lossy MP3 compression works by removing information that is deemed to be inaudible. Certain frequencies are implied by others and can be removed, high frequencies often go first etc. How this is done depends on the algorithm used to create the compression.

A lot of people create MP3s using terrible software and then blame it on the bit rate. In actual fact, all that is happening is the poor bit rates highlight the terrible conversion done!

I used Adobe Audition's MP3 converter (which uses the Fraunhoffer algorithm) to create these MP3s. It is the best I have come across so far, although I am fairly sure there is better out there after I came across some staggeringly good 128k MP3s.

You see, these sorts of tests show that those people who STATE that anything that isnt lossless is garbage / anything below 160k is dire etc etc shouldnt make such bold claims. Well ripped MP3s might not stand up to intense scrutiny against CD when you play them back to a hardcore audiophile but you need pretty special hearing to pick them apart IMO :)
 
I agree with that. After doing your test I was thinking about all my old 128 kbps MP3s, some of which are pretty awful, and obviously it can't be just the bit rate that's making them sound so bad. They must have been badly ripped.

Having said that your test also proves that there is an audible difference between 128 kbps and higher bit rates, although it takes some careful listenning to spot it. I still think 192 kbps (or possibly 160 kbps) is the sweet spot, if you're going to be loading them onto a small MP3 player (like my 1 GB sony).

I also think another hour with each CD and I would have got the right order. I was only basing my judgements on very small sections of each track where the differences were most obvious, and I didn't go back and check my results.

Having said that, I think decent headphones were a huge help in spotting the differences. I think on speakers (unless you're talking about a seriously expensive setup), I would only have been able to spot the lowest bit rate file. On the other hand though, with Sennheiser HD650, a top headphone amp and a top CD player, I'm sure the differences would have been easier to spot than on Grado SR80/Audigy 2.
 
DRZ,

Thanks for reminding us of this thread. Have to admit that I forgot to get involved last time.
I've deliberately avoided reading most of this thread, so don't know which is which. I'll try to run a dem tomorrow and will let you know the results.

Cheers
Suk
 
I'm gonna give this a go when I get a chance - can you give us the weekend before you post up the results?

BTW - tip for anybody trying this test, listen to the high end! MP3s kill everything over 15k and progressivly destroy things in the 10-15k area as the bitrate gets worse. Low end is not nearly so badly affected naturally, becuase the wave length is that much longer.

If it's orchestral music with no cymbals I might find it more difficult to tell than usual, as I tend to use the ride to judge the quality of digital recordings. Should be interesting and fun anyway!
 
Last edited:
DRZ said:
A lot of people create MP3s using terrible software and then blame it on the bit rate. In actual fact, all that is happening is the poor bit rates highlight the terrible conversion done!
Click to expand...

Thought the majority of programs used LAME for .mp3 encoding? Anyway it's a good point, I know there are quite a few posts at Hydrogen Audio forums where people do blind listening tests between different formats (.ogg, .mp3, .m4a, etc..) at the same bit-rate and it seems in a lot of cases there is a noticable difference between formats. Mainly .ogg and LAME .mp3 are probably the better lossy formats out of the lot. But I'd still encode at 160/192kbps if converting to .mp3 - simply because space isn't at a premium now.

EDIT: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=36465 - Listening test between MP3, AAC, OGG and MPC at 180kbps - for anyone interested.
 
Last edited:
I'd love to try but after standing with my back to very noisy guitarists, bassists and drummers for 35 years and being very old, my ears are shot now.
All MP3 bit rates of 128 and higher all sound the same to me.
I can tell the difference between 128 and 56 though.
 
with the first one i thought:

The first was lowerest quality with the last two possibly sounding the best,
but i could barely tell anything
Click to expand...

The second cd, apart from being debatable 'music' i thought:

That track 3 was the worst, with the others being pretty similar, possibly 5 is best.

But to be honest they all sound crap to me, so i duno which one is supposed to be "high quality" as i never listen to that sort of stuff
Click to expand...

usually when listening to my music which is mostly some kind of Rock from the last 50 years or Jazz, i find that if i'm playing on random and the next track comes on:

With low quality MP3's <128kbs i usually notice straight away and quickly change to something thats sounds a bit nicer!

with medium quality MP3's 160-192Kbs, i usually don't think anything of the sound quality.

with high quality MP3's >224Kbs, OGG-Vorbis 8+ and FLAC, i normally think 'wow' that sounds awsome!

Greg
 
Can't be bothered with all that tbh, but when I've ripped stuff, I tried 128kbps and it didn't sound quite right. Re-ripping it with 192kbps min sounds much better. Something about the bass and treble in the lower bit rates is wrong. Not much, sounds a bit like you're using worse speakers or something.

I use 160-320 vbr and get pretty good sizes and great quality.
 
I use LAME 3.90 encoder, and from 64k to 320k I could not tell the difference on Sennehisers headphones and audigy 2.

however theres a lot of software out there that just uses really **** encoders but is easy to use, xing was one of them that used to be popular but crap quality.

I advise people to use EAC with LAME 3.90.3 (or the latest version)

No swearing.

Otacon
 
Grrr... I don't have any blank CDs. I'll mount them on my PC and see how they sound, although I think my AV amp might limit my powers somewhat. It would be good to get in on my CDP and see what sort of difference it makes.
 
pallys said:
I use LAME 3.90 encoder, and from 64k to 320k I could not tell the difference on Sennehisers headphones and audigy 2.

however theres a lot of software out there that just uses really **** encoders but is easy to use, xing was one of them that used to be popular but crap quality.
Click to expand...
Wait, you can't tell between 64kps and 320kps, but you would say that Xing is noticeably and hugely inferior to LAME at the same bitrate? =/
Xing is pretty much obsolete, I agree, but I don't find encoders to make as much difference as you make (i.e. difference between 64-320). In fact, I did a mass blind test in 1998 between LAME, BladeEnc (obsolete), Xing (obsolete), Fraunhofer, the VQF format (obsolete?) and CD wav (source) as control. At the various bitrate, I found myself subjectively prefering the Xing offering. Especially with Joint Stereo on (which was not recommended). Granted LAME had several years of improvement, but I find it surprising you can tell the difference between codec but not the lowest/highest bitrate.

I will however agree that LAME is perhaps the encoder to go for today. The way I would explain the poor quality of certain MP3.. sample out there lies on the source. I suspect that many are not CD-ripped. Or perhaps they once were, but some people decided to transcode them. Perhaps it was originally ripped to 128kps (nothing stellar), to 320kps so it looks good (but sound even worse), only for someone else to further shrink it down to 160kps because 320 is too big.
 
Last edited:
TooNice said:
Wait, you can't tell between 64kps and 320kps, but you would say that Xing is noticeably and hugely inferior to LAME at the same bitrate? =/
Xing is pretty much obsolete, I agree, but I don't find encoders to make as much difference as you make (i.e. difference between 64-320). In fact, I did a mass blind test in 1998 between LAME, BladeEnc (obsolete), Xing (obsolete), Fraunhofer, the VQF format (obsolete?) and CD wav (source) as control. At the various bitrate, I found myself subjectively prefering the Xing offering. Especially with Joint Stereo on (which was not recommended). Granted LAME had several years of improvement, but I find it surprising you can tell the difference between codec but not the lowest/highest bitrate.

I will however agree that LAME is perhaps the encoder to go for today. The way I would explain the poor quality of certain MP3.. sample out there lies on the source. I suspect that many are not CD-ripped. Or perhaps they once were, but some people decided to transcode them. Perhaps it was originally ripped to 128kps (nothing stellar), to 320kps so it looks good (but sound even worse), only for someone else to further shrink it down to 160kps because 320 is too big.
Click to expand...

no, i meant that i cudnt not tell difference on my equipment between 64k and 320k on LAME. I've never knowingly heard XingMP3 except reading bad articles about them and I assumed any poor mp3's i come across was from Xing, but if u did a comparison then looks like my assumption was wrong and there was just bad sources converted into MP3
 
georges said:
Can't be bothered with all that tbh, but when I've ripped stuff, I tried 128kbps and it didn't sound quite right. Re-ripping it with 192kbps min sounds much better. Something about the bass and treble in the lower bit rates is wrong. Not much, sounds a bit like you're using worse speakers or something.

I use 160-320 vbr and get pretty good sizes and great quality.
Click to expand...

You know people will say that when they are affraid of the truth. well, either that or they really cant be bothered. really though, you should try it - it suprises everybody.

pallys - what equipement are you using then? it should be very easy to tell tbh :/

DRZ - OH no, not these samples again LOL. I#m reluctant to try it incase i get it all wrong this time DRZ :o

but anyway, my thoughts (after a long day at work mind, i'm pretty mentally fatigued right now): (highlight the space below but DONT quote it if your quoting me. thank you.. color=#1c5780 if your interested)

---------------------------------------------------
hello!

1 very soft. sound's over-soft.
2 harder than 1, slight distortion at the top end
3 brighter than 2, more distortion
4 cleanest so far, least distortion and more natural
5 same as 4
6 slighty muddier than 4&5, better than 1

soooooo

1 ~64k. im betting on wma.
2 ~128k. mp3 i think
3 ~96k mp3 or wma
4 & 5. the original and possible lossless WMA. i wont guess which is which lol
6 ~156k mp3.


---------------------------------------------------

That's what i think on cd one anyway lol

edit: christ on a bike i didnt realise he put the results up already. Looks like i was wrong, like fish99 :p
 
Last edited:
james.miller said:
You know people will say that when they are affraid of the truth. well, either that or they really cant be bothered. really though, you should try it - it suprises everybody.

pallys - what equipement are you using then? it should be very easy to tell tbh :/
Click to expand...

Sennheiser headphones on an Audigy 2 listening to progressive trance. I coudnt tell the difference when I ripped my own music at 64k or 320k using EAC+LAME, I was quite surprised
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom