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

[Mark Wild]

I came across this test on Noise Addicts, listened to it attentively with high quality headphones and to my horror ! Got it wrong ! :eek: See what result you get, I know alot of you will lie if you get it wrong due to the shame :o LOL. But try to be honest, give it a go. (apologies if you've done this before)


http://www.noiseaddicts.com/2009/03/mp3-sound-quality-test-128-320/

[rob1963]

Having just taken the test, I couldn't tell the difference...so that's the argument for encoding your music at 320kb out the window.

Its a bit like the difference between a 4mp digital camera & an 8pm one not being noticeable, and the difference between the number of requests a DJ with 10,000 songs has compared to one with 20,000 songs not being noticeable etc etc.

Once you reach a certain point, going further makes little or no noticeable difference.

[MagicMusic]

I got it right but I willing to admit I may simply have been lucky.

I must say that the test is entirely deceptive.

Why feature a clip of a track which appears to have inherent noise in the background???

There's a vinyl - esque white noise in both clips - white noise would mask the high frequency distortion which occurs with lossy compression.

Not an authentic test at all.

[Dynamic Entertainment]

Ive just fed it through a pair of KRK monitors, and the difference is slightly noticable IMO, nothing to shout home about though. Youve got to remember that the majority of us will listen to that clip on a computer, or headphones, that dont have the same range as a cabinet with a dedicated set of drivers. ive noticed on the pub when one of my djs is playing a lower bit rate file because he has to work the EQ's to get the same bass response from alot of his songs.

[Excalibur]

Ive just fed it through a pair of KRK monitors, and the difference is slightly noticable IMO, nothing to shout home about though. Youve got to remember that the majority of us will listen to that clip on a computer, or headphones, that dont have the same range as a cabinet with a dedicated set of drivers. ive noticed on the pub when one of my djs is playing a lower bit rate file because he has to work the EQ's to get the same bass response from alot of his songs.

And don't of course forget that when we put those classic 60's tracks on, the sound on those is terribly thin compared to todays offerings, in most cases.

[Dynamic Entertainment]

And don't of course forget that when we put those classic 60's tracks on, the sound on those is terribly thin compared to todays offerings, in most cases.

But have you noticed that "Re-mastered" should read "Now sounds Effing crap" in alot of cases :D

[Excalibur]

But have you noticed that "Re-mastered" should read "Now sounds Effing crap" in alot of cases :D

And the real one to watch out for is " re-recorded by the original artists" ;) I've missed that in the small print before, and now know which labels to avoid totally. ;)

[Danno13]

I really don't see how this test is relevant when you're playing the tracks through a standard PC soundcard, with headphones or little speakers. You can't notice the difference on budget brands of PA for example, it's only when you get up to decent kit that you can tell, so trying to judge it on a PC is just silly!

[Steve the DJ]

I really don't see how this test is relevant when you're playing the tracks through a standard PC soundcard, with headphones or little speakers. You can't notice the difference on budget brands of PA for example, it's only when you get up to decent kit that you can tell, so trying to judge it on a PC is just silly!

Agree 100%.

Anyone who can't hear the difference between a 128kbps encoded MP3 and a 320kbps encoded MP3 is deaf and has obviously been listening to loud music for too long...

Play them through a high quality PA and you will hear a clear difference. Then play the same song as a WAV file and the difference again is like night & day.*

I thought I had a great sound until I bought my new DragonSpirit system, then I found out that not only could I guess exactly what type of file I was playing just by listening to it but what a real 500 watt sub is all about. :eek:

It's a bit like we have been "trained" over recent years to accept poor quality sound because it's the norm.

*DISCLAIMER: Apart from some tunes such as Motown that are recorded in a certain way and seem to sound the same no matter what the file quality, i.e. poo.

[soundtracker]

*DISCLAIMER: Apart from some tunes such as Motown that are recorded in a certain way and seem to sound the same no matter what the file quality, i.e. poo.

But these also sounded poo on Vinyl & CD:)

[rob1963]

It's a bit like we have been "trained" over recent years to accept poor quality sound because it's the norm.

Surely that was true back in the days of vinyl & cassette singles...but not now.

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

Surely that was true back in the days of vinyl & cassette singles...but not now.

I would have thought it was the other way round. Mp3 is compressed, therefore losing some of the quality of the original.

[Mark Wild]

I really don't see how this test is relevant when you're playing the tracks through a standard PC soundcard, with headphones or little speakers. You can't notice the difference on budget brands of PA for example, it's only when you get up to decent kit that you can tell, so trying to judge it on a PC is just silly!

I don't think that's strictly true, as not everyone uses the standard PC soundcard. For alot of people it's the first thing that's ripped out and changed ;)

[spin mobile disco]

There are other advantages to 320kbs bitrate to the others. For example if playing back on a digital playout system a constant bitrate is to be prefered to lower chances of problems (note to dennon owners there did they ever fix that vbr problem?)
When using I split system ie seperate subs and top you can notice the difference between a cbr 320kps and a 192kps cbr.
But saying that a variable bitrate 192kps file and a 320kps contant bitrate file are very hard to distiquish if a good encoder was used. Miles sound system encoder or the lame codec.
As I archive my music to protect it and ther fact I do not want to got through all that tedious ripping and labelling again I ripped in 320kbs cbr this means if sound systems do improve and we can all tell thedifference in the future hopefully im covered. And these days space on a hard drive is not really an issue is it?

[Steve the DJ]

But these also sounded poo on Vinyl & CD:)

That's what I meant!


Surely that was true back in the days of vinyl & cassette singles...but not now.


I would have thought it was the other way round. Mp3 is compressed, therefore losing some of the quality of the original.

Exactly.

Many people will grow up with compressed downloads being the music of choice and will never really appreciate quality sound. Even iTunes reduces quality unless you buy Apple Lossless files.

Those that say they can't hear a difference haven't heard a decent system yet IMHO and I say that as someone who thought everything was great until I was educated by someone who understands quality sound.


As I archive my music to protect it and ther fact I do not want to got through all that tedious ripping and labelling again I ripped in 320kbs cbr this means if sound systems do improve and we can all tell thedifference in the future hopefully im covered. And these days space on a hard drive is not really an issue is it?

This is why I rip CDs to flac (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Lossless_Audio_Codec) and now only buy WAV downloads.

The quality of equipment will get better and storage space will only get cheaper, meaning archiving at the best possible quality currently available (lossless) was the best choice for me.

Especially as my software of choice (OtsAV) will be able to handle lossless files from the next update.

Can your average punter tell the difference (or even care)? Probably not, but that's a different discussion...

[A1DL]

Here's Tony Andrews' paper on the subject
http://www.funktion-one.com/dl/files/1789.pdf

[MagicMusic]

Here's Tony Andrews' paper on the subject
http://www.funktion-one.com/dl/files/1789.pdf

That's a good piece I've read it before, not particularly objective as its heavily opinionated but good reading nonetheless.

:approve:

[Mark Wild]

Here's Tony Andrews' paper on the subject
http://www.funktion-one.com/dl/files/1789.pdf

The analogy of the image being enlarged brings it home totally and makes me wonder if I'm doing the right thing being digital, I use 320 only but after reading that feel I'm still losing out. One thing is for sure though, the average punter has no real perception of quality to a certain degree, but that shouldn't mean we as DJ's should lower our own standards of what we perceive. It's a good debate for sure. Good read that.

[MagicMusic]

The analogy of the image being enlarged brings it home totally and makes me wonder if I'm doing the right thing being digital

Like I said in my last post, that piece is heavily opinionated and I would have to query the waveform diagram he uses. Generally though i'd agree with what he says.

If you look around online you'll find other experts who will argue the exact opposite.

The joys of professional audio! :)

[BeerFunk]

Regardless of which file format you use, and regardless of your playout system, I maintain that the 'weakest' audio link in any disco setup is the PA system. Even the very best PA system simply cannot compete with a decent home hi-fi system.

That said, there's not a lot you can do about that - so you can only maximise the quality of sound up until that point. I do think a lot of this is psychological - if you hadn't have read about how MP3 compression works, would you have noticed anything? The same applies to DVD video, which uses similar MPEG compression.

[Dynamic Entertainment]

In that case...:Censored: it, im saving for a alba stack system over turbosound/void/*any other decent make" :D

[MagicMusic]

if you hadn't have read about how MP3 compression works, would you have noticed anything?

I can only speak for myself but in most cases I find lower quality mp3's completely obvious at a loud level. I have tinnitus and my ears are particularly sensitive toanything above 8k on the frequency range therefor the harshness which is often introduced at around 11/12k as a direct result of over compression is very noticeable.

I think that there is also a "thinness" about low quality mp3's. I tested different bit rates at different levels in the studio and found that there became a real difference once you get as low as 192.

Like you say i'm sure that the P.A system in most cases has the largest effect on this perceived quality and the overly "bright" nature of a lot of the cheaper systems emphasise the degradation caused by the compression.

Interestingly I paid particularly close attention the last time I was out (Inside Out @ The Arches, Glasgow) and noticed a spectacular difference between the "harshness" (or lack of it) from the Funktion one system in the main room compared to the reinforcement system used elswhere in the club.

For me, the biggest mistake I encounter is mobile outfits not EQ'ing the room. If a little more attention was paid to how each venue affects the overall sound then a lot of the parties I go to would sound a hell of a lot better.

[rob1963]

I would have thought it was the other way round. Mp3 is compressed, therefore losing some of the quality of the original.

If you're saying vinyl was better quality than MP3s are, then I'll bow down to your expertise, as I'm not very technical.

However, I find that rather surprising, especially with all the crackles I remember getting with vinyl, which I haven't yet noticed on any of my MP3s

:shrug:

[A1DL]

Regardless of which file format you use, and regardless of your playout system, I maintain that the 'weakest' audio link in any disco setup is the PA system.


Generally that is very true.


Even the very best PA system simply cannot compete with a decent home hi-fi system.


That is incorrect. A/B Res2 or 4, Q, C7, ARCS, etc, etc against a "decent home hifi" and you'll change your mind.

[BeerFunk]

That is incorrect. A/B Res2 or 4, Q, C7, ARCS, etc, etc against a "decent home hifi" and you'll change your mind.I might do, yes! Obviously my comments were based on my experiences with mobile PA equipment, and listening to club sound systems, and even larger sounds systems used at live concerts.

Out of interest, where would you find the equipment that you mentioned installed?

[Penfold42]

It's all music to me. Same as Joe public I guess....:D :D :D :D :D

[A1DL]

Out of interest, where would you find the equipment that you mentioned installed?
You should find the FK1 boxes I mentioned in decent clubs, the d&b and L'acoustics boxes are standard production company inventory, so many a large corporate event in a five star hotel ballroom or conference centre.

[MagicMusic]

L'acoustics

T in the Park and The Garage, Glasgow the first 2 that spring to mind. In fact anywhere that EFX audio supply the sound unless they've changed their stock in the last year ;)

Funktion 1 @ The Arches and The Ferry of all places.

[Mark Wild]

You should find the FK1 boxes I mentioned in decent clubs, the d&b and L'acoustics boxes are standard production company inventory, so many a large corporate event in a five star hotel ballroom or conference centre.



T in the Park and The Garage, Glasgow the first 2 that spring to mind. In fact anywhere that EFX audio supply the sound unless they've changed their stock in the last year ;)

Funktion 1 @ The Arches and The Ferry of all places.

But whats any of that got to do with anything?

[MagicMusic]

But whats any of that got to do with anything?

Its off topic but he asked where to find those systems :sofa:

[spin mobile disco]

Its very well talking about how much better sound could be but if you are ripping music yourself from cd it cannot be better than the current lossless formats due to the low resolution of the cd medium ie 16bit.
Does anyone on here remember the hd sound dvd that came with the sounblaster audigy sound card?
Just worth mentionign as they produced a dvd of music it only took 22 tracks I think it was and the dvd was full but it was recorded in a high definition format and the sound quilty was supurb if you closed your eyes you could point out each instrument position in the song. Quite remarkable however of course it would mean a hard drive of around 2 terra bytes to store a reasonable amount of music. And im not sure todays hardware ie laptops , d2 cortex dennon etc are capable of handling such a large file type without lag or loading issues.

[MagicMusic]

it cannot be better than the current lossless formats due to the low resolution of the cd medium ie 16bit.

It was only a matter of time befor someone came out with that.

Worms can opened of.

Recent research in digital audio suggests that AD - DA converters should be 1bit. Work that out!

[Megamix]

just got back from a Vinyl only Soul weekend and the only difference to me from CDs was hearing the the scratches on the slow ones.:D

[OllieJames]

I got it wrong too... I can't remember what I ripped my CDs onto my computer as :o

[Javlingames]

I got it wrong too. I personally dont find much difference between 128 and 320 on the systems i play in, which are mostly installed by CVA, who i believe use EV and Nexo in their clubs? Maybe A1 could clairfy that?. Most of my songs are 320 however.

[MagicMusic]

My personal opinion is that 320 is fine. I have DJ'ed with my mate several times on big systems and only ever notice a huge difference when the rip goes below 192.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, there is a lot of opinion on the noticeable difference in quality.

Many leading sound engineers and producers have conflicting opinion and they are experts in the field considering every aspect from the recording process, mixing process and mastering.

A lot of these guys are :Censored: off because they invest so much skill, time and money into fine tuning the finer details, details that most of us can't even pick up on, then we come along and undo all that hard work by ripping to mp3 and compressing all the information!

One of my lecturers at college who has worked at the highest level in the recording industry told me about some engineers who are willing to pay £100 plus for a single CD-R disc, one of the older ones with larger capacity - purely because they believe that the tiniest little detail or artefact introduced by AD conversion is detrimental to the eventual sound!

Anyway the reason I'm mentioning it is because it offers insight into some of the motivation behind some people's opinion on the subject.

I learned that although there are generally accepted 'truths', in audio theory, like many things in life, there isn't always a right or wrong.

Audio purists will never be happy with formats like mp3, many still don't like CD's and many more still swear by vinyl as the ultimate recording medium.

Hundreds (thousands perhaps) of recording studios around the world still record to tape!!!

There are a million theories out there, for every argument there's a counter argument usually motivated by that person's perspective in the industry.

For me 320 is the magic number for mp3's, 192 is acceptable but I try to buy my electronic music as wav, so that I can remix and manipulate it :)

Anyhoo, that's my tuppenceworth

:D

[DJMaxG]

I thought Clip 1 sounded louder, so selected it, and was correct.

But playing it through Computer Speakers isn't really that much of a fair test.

There is of course one solution, and that is to grab a terrabyte hdd and do everything in WAV, that way, you needn't worry about sound quality ever again. :approve:

[Excalibur]

I thought Clip 1 sounded louder, so selected it, and was correct.

But playing it through Computer Speakers isn't really that much of a fair test.

There is of course one solution, and that is to grab a terrabyte hdd and do everything in WAV, that way, you needn't worry about sound quality ever again. :approve:

As technology marches forward, I'm sure that will soon be a viable option. Especially when somebody builds an HDC with acceptable performance on WAV files.

[DazzyD]

Like you say, it's only a matter of time!

[SC Events]

I have a 1TB Hard drive and all my music is saved as either 256kbps or 320kbps.

At the radio station, our music is saved as 192kbps and I find it difficult to tell the difference.

[paull]

I find it difficult to hear the difference between the two on my laptop, but I can hear the difference own my rig (Crown XTi and MRX 515 and MRX 528) especially the bass element of some tracks and the detail of some highs.