posted by:
|
San Diego
|
-
Re: 128k v.s. 320k: Can you tell the difference?
Tue, March 25, 2008 - 9:26 AMmy sensitive ears are telling you...
yes....a lot!!
and even more compare to .wav. -
-
Re: 128k v.s. 320k: Can you tell the difference?
Tue, March 25, 2008 - 9:35 AMHaha, yeah I realized after posting...crap, I'm listening on shitty headphones at work.
Gonna check it out on the monitors tonight at home. I usually do hear the diff between 128k and 320k, but not between 256k and 320k.
-
-
Re: 128k v.s. 320k: Can you tell the difference?
Tue, March 25, 2008 - 9:54 AMI honestly can. It's always the high end. Listen to the tambourine & the orch hits 1/2 way in. ignore the vocals. The tails are easy to hear.. -
-
Re: 128k v.s. 320k: Can you tell the difference?
Tue, March 25, 2008 - 11:33 AMThe difference is big, you'll hear it all in the high end as the lower the bitrate the more the high (and even some of the very low) is dithered out. wav and 320k is smooth, while when it starts going below that at high volumes you'll notice things sound abit..."sand papered" -
-
Re: 128k v.s. 320k: Can you tell the difference?
Tue, March 25, 2008 - 11:35 AMAlso there are some people, myself included, who can hear very high frequencies, like up to 20,000hz. Other people's ears (and also the older you get) can't hear those, find a frequency generator tool on the internet and test your ears if you'd like. On average most people can't hear beyond 16,000hz
-
-
![Bobby [Aerosis]](http://images.tribe.net/tribe/upload/photo/554/539/55453982-228b-4274-82ac-ce7e8e94dff7.mugshot "Bobby [Aerosis]"){kind=small}
-
Re: 128k v.s. 320k: Can you tell the difference?
Tue, March 25, 2008 - 11:55 AMyep... I was just listening on my monitor headphones, last nite... it was to a track at 200K... I have pretty sensitive ears... low KBps rates sound like older albums, made in the 90's and 80's... kindof flat. 320 is usually pretty good, though... still, I prefer a lossless encoder... 1.4MBps is kindof a real minimum, with music as intricate and loud as we're playing it. -
-
Re: 128k v.s. 320k: Can you tell the difference?
Tue, March 25, 2008 - 2:07 PMThat's neat. -
-
Re: 128k v.s. 320k: Can you tell the difference?
Tue, March 25, 2008 - 9:22 PMmp3ornot.com/ - this test is rigged - clip B is slightly louder than clip A, making most people think its clearer. Also opera is a terrible example to demonstrate the difference in mp3 quality, you're not gonna be able to tell. -
-
Re: 128k v.s. 320k: Can you tell the difference?
Wed, March 26, 2008 - 8:50 AMI'd agree that the test is not using the best style of music to test from. Throw some dnb or dubstep in there and it'd be glaringly obvious. -
-
Re: 128k v.s. 320k: Can you tell the difference?
Wed, March 26, 2008 - 9:11 AMor jazz... (lots of cymbal-work--dead giveaway.)
-
-
-
-
-
Re: 128k v.s. 320k: Can you tell the difference?
Thu, March 27, 2008 - 10:23 AMthe low frequencies and the bass on the instrumental track on clip B are terribly flat.
check the difference with the sounds that are sort of in the "middle" of the mix... on clip A, they are definitely louder, and clearer.
that's what I hear anyways.
-
Re: 128k v.s. 320k: Can you tell the difference?
Fri, April 4, 2008 - 2:22 PMAbso-Fucking-Lutely you can tell the diff. between those 2 rates.......
always encode high .... always ....
-
-
Re: 128k v.s. 320k: Can you tell the difference?
Fri, April 4, 2008 - 3:37 PMDid you guys get the question right? All of you who claim to be able to tell the difference? I got it wrong....then again I am guessing the upper register of my hearing is pretty shot....somewhere between loud guitars (playing) and swinging a hammer (working) for all these years.
www.myspace.com/mortal_engines -
-
Re: 128k v.s. 320k: Can you tell the difference?
Fri, April 4, 2008 - 6:09 PMit's not just your hearing, that test isn't really fair. i listened for things that are usually tell-tale signs (the high pitched percussion) and it's not as loud in the 320 version. they also picked the PERFECT part to fool you. i'd like to see them pull off the same thing with a big jazz band or even a good rock band with a prominent drummer.
i got bitchy about bitrates not because i'm a natural-born snob, but because i HEARD lousy encoding... (becoming a snob usually takes training, anyway.) -
-
Re: 128k v.s. 320k: Can you tell the difference?
Sat, April 5, 2008 - 12:31 AMYeah, even on the monitors at home I couldn't really tell a difference. I agree it wasn't the best clip to demonstrate bit rate differences. -
-
Re: 128k v.s. 320k: Can you tell the difference?
Sat, April 5, 2008 - 11:29 AMI hear you on the percussion point. Usually I can tell a crappy mp3 just by the crash of the cymbals. -
-
Re: 128k v.s. 320k: Can you tell the difference?
Sat, April 5, 2008 - 11:43 AMyep, that crash or ride cymbal or
a good tambourine tells the tale
every time, rather than a rich ring
and sizzle you get something akin
to Bill the Cat's classic "thprrrrrt" -
-
Re: 128k v.s. 320k: Can you tell the difference?
Sat, April 26, 2008 - 11:32 AMIt's funny to hear die hard audiophiles compare two stages of sound that are only a spec different. I'm a "professional" audio engineer and guessed wrong. And I listened to both samples thoroughly, here in my studio, picking out different pieces to focus on each time. There's no excuses for this. I'm not calling it unfair. I'm not calling it a bad sample. I mean, what if your client came in with the same piece and wanted you to make decision based on it? To be honest, there is very little different between the two. Bring me a .wav file and .mp3, now we're talking some difference. But that was nothing. In the end, it only proved one thing. That it's significant difference that the average listener pays attention to. -
-
Re: 128k v.s. 320k: Can you tell the difference?
Sat, April 26, 2008 - 2:27 PMAmen, Twisted. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: 128k v.s. 320k: Can you tell the difference?
Sat, April 26, 2008 - 3:27 PMWell, I just listened to both samples on my flat response studio monitors, and I heard a difference, but it is a really poor choice for a comparison. I tend to notice audio loss in the bass beats, especially on a really big system. The bass sounds kind of hollow and flat on low quality mp3's, but nice and rounded on 320 kbps files. I will listen for those cymbal tails mentioned above from now on as well. Maybe someone with more web savvy than me can make a similar test using some fat club track?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
