Take the 320k vs 128k mp3 hearing test?

cnh

Here's a straightforward demo of why higher bit rates sound better. If you can't hear the difference I'd have your hearing checked.

I can barely hear a 14Khz tone (aging related loss) but I had "no" problem hearing the difference between these two mp3 files (would've been neat if they also had a lossless file to compare as well).

The interesting thing here is that you can hear this "even" on a fairly pedestrian system. My PC sound is essentially headphone out jack to an "old" Kenwood KR-5400 receiver powering a set of Realistic Minimus 7s. And the difference was immediately noticeable.

For you hard science boys and girls. This test works "blind" (since you don't know which option is 320 or 128).

Enjoy!

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

cnh

Glowrdr

That's pretty cool. I picked the right one with just my 2.1 Altec Lansings on my desktop.

(FYI for those taking it - you can switch between clip 1+2 realtime, it doesn't start over) Took me once time through to figure that out. lol

rromeo923

I failed :redface:

I was able to hear the 15hz tone. Definitely older than 25

Joe08867

I heard the difference with some cheap HK computer speakers. Definitely clearer in 320 than 128.

dudeinaroom

some say higher bit rate does not make a difference. Tell that to my hard drive, and my ears, neither will believe you. Yhe chapters are songs I ripped from dvda and converted to flac. I also have them in their native .mlp format, trying to find a codec or player that can play them.

JimMueller

On my laptop speakers I couldn't hear the difference in the bit rate test, and could only hear up to 15khz. I was hoping it was simply the laptop speakers, but the dogs ears perked up on 22khz. I'm 42. I wonder if these common speaker upgrades (tweeters, xo's, etc) still offer value to me or is it wasted money?

dragon1952

Picked the correct one with my HK computer speakers! These are cheapies but they sound surprisingly good. The files were pretty close I thought. My first immediate impression was the correct one, but then I listened to each one twice more and stuck with the first impression.

WilliamM2

JimMueller wrote: »

On my laptop speakers I couldn't hear the difference in the bit rate test, and could only hear up to 15khz. I was hoping it was simply the laptop speakers, but the dogs ears perked up on 22khz. I'm 42. I wonder if these common speaker upgrades (tweeters, xo's, etc) still offer value to me or is it wasted money?

The tweeters in my SDA's crossover at 2.5Khz, so I think you would still benefit from upgrading.

cnh

I agree. There is not a lot of musical information above your hearing range (15Khz). I'm older and hence the lower frequency range but even I can hear significant differences between various pieces of equipment and speakers. Plus having an expanded frequency range in your equipment actually helps clean up the sounds you actually can hear--and some argue that certain cues are received from information we can't hear (theoretically). Upgrades do not require that you hear like a 15 year old.

My daughter is 14 and can hear the 21Khz test tones. I hear 14Khz (barely) but I don't think that my appreciation of good sources is "less" than hers--"experience" is also a factor.

The same can be said for intelligence. It peaks early and then begins a slow decline, however, experience, knowledge, education, and age compensate incredibly so that a Professor in his/her 50s is not seen as a senescent dolt but a leader in his or her field, an "authority" whose opinions are eagerly sought.

If you check that site you'll see that hearing declines pretty "early" in life. You've already lost some upper range by 30 (on the average of course--there are exceptional cases).

cnh

cnh

Zero wrote: »

Besides, just like with anything else PC rated...it's not just the numbers that tell the story. The 'quality' of an mp3 largely boils down to the algorithm of the encoding software and how the user takes advantage of said software. This 'test' really doesn't really do much to highlight the difference between 128 and 320, but I digress..

Don't disagree with any of the above. But would you not say that if one is using the same encoding for both rates and one can hear a difference that that "is" something that you could probably reproduce with any other "better" algorithm encoding in the same way, i.e., the encoding at 128 vs. 320. This is nothing more than a crude test of course, no one is claiming much more than that?

Digressions are encouraged. By all means extend the discussion, no reason why we can't step up the discourse with more refined and informed data.

cnh

BeefJerky

JimMueller wrote: »

On my laptop speakers I couldn't hear the difference in the bit rate test, and could only hear up to 15khz. I was hoping it was simply the laptop speakers, but the dogs ears perked up on 22khz. I'm 42. I wonder if these common speaker upgrades (tweeters, xo's, etc) still offer value to me or is it wasted money?

I could only hear up to 15kHz as well, but I'm only 32. I also used a third party sound generator to confirm. However, I've never had great hearing, even as a child, so I'm not surprised.

As for the 128kbps vs 320kbps sample, yes I could tell the difference, including on some mid-range Creative computer speakers.

Glowrdr

320kbps with Beats FTW! :cheesygrin:

mrbiron

I guess the hereditary hearing loss and ear surgeries are showing their true colors at a mere 27.
Can only do 14Hz and failed the AB comparison....but i did ace the "Which sine wav is louder" section. I may not be able to hear low and differences but i can still tell you what is louder than the other....oh and if they are "Real" or "Fake"

VSchneider

That's an interesting and fun link, and thanks for sharing!

The 320k sounded better to me via 8$ Sony headphones, but the difference was not quite "night and day".

Assuming the test is not like this terrible BestBuy "megapixel demo", it is quite convincing

wz2p7j

I failed the test - maybe I need better cables ??

mdaudioguy

???? Most people are getting it wrong????

You selected Clip# 1 …Congratulations!

Clip #1 is encoded at 320kbps (36613 votes)
Clip #2 is encoded at 128kbps (40520 votes)

cnh

mdaudioguy wrote: »

???? Most people are getting it wrong????

Wow...looks like Zero called that one! I suspect people are not listening closely. This reminds me of Darqueknight's threads on how he measures or educates the listener for "what" to listen for. Then again, there's also the question of the equipment used. But hey, if we were "normal" we wouldn't be here (hear?) lol

cnh

quadzilla

The question asks "which one sounds better". This question seems to presume that everyone will like the 320 kbps file better. But we already know that's not correct. A test was done where a bunch of college-aged people were asked to listen to 128 kbps mp3s through cheap ear buds and 320 kbps files through "audiophile" headphones. The 128 kbps files through cheap ear buds won by a large margin, because *that's what they were used to*.

coolsax

I picked out the correct one i think you can tell the biggest difference in the cymbals and how they sound.

Tbone289

quadzilla wrote: »

The question asks "which one sounds better". This question seems to presume that everyone will like the 320 kbps file better. But we already know that's not correct. A test was done where a bunch of college-aged people were asked to listen to 128 kbps mp3s through cheap ear buds and 320 kbps files through "audiophile" headphones. The 128 kbps files through cheap ear buds won by a large margin, because *that's what they were used to*.

ugh. :rolleyes:

headrott

Yep, cymbals are one of the first and easiest places to pick up on the harshness in the lower quality mp3. Actually, with good enough equipment (ears included) any mp3. The cymbals sound tinny and not smooth. Also, the high end on the vocals and instruments don't sound as good. The same goes for a CD copied multiple times. It's a very similar sound. I am not trying to start this debate again, but if people can hear the lower quality mp3 harshness, you should be able to hear a CD copied a number of times and the result on the high frequencies.

Greg

Fongolio

My son at 16 can hear the 21 kHz tone. I can only hear to 14 kHz but I'm 50. We both picked the 320 sound file.

Joe08867

quadzilla wrote: »

The question asks "which one sounds better". This question seems to presume that everyone will like the 320 kbps file better. But we already know that's not correct. A test was done where a bunch of college-aged people were asked to listen to 128 kbps mp3s through cheap ear buds and 320 kbps files through "audiophile" headphones. The 128 kbps files through cheap ear buds won by a large margin, because *that's what they were used to*.

WOW! you just love to argue, Sad really...

Maybe they were used to it because that is what itunes and those other music services offer. And that listening test you are talking about was totally screwed up. The ear buds I use (Skullcandy) can dig deeper and clearer than the old Audiophile Sennheisers I used to use.

Now if they had run the 320k through the ear buds the kids would have heard a difference.

BeefJerky

Joe08867 wrote: »

And that listening test you are talking about was totally screwed up.

Agreed. There were two variables and no control, which makes for a useless and invalid study.

Now if they had run the 320k through the ear buds the kids would have heard a difference.

Right. However, I think what quadzilla was trying to say was less about whether there was a difference and more about preference. Assuming they ran the test with 128kbps and 320kbps on the same headphones, and the difference was heard, it's possible they may still have preferred the sound of the 128kbps mp3. Personally I don't understand why anyone would, but different people have different preferences.

newrival

Joe08867 wrote: »

WOW! you just love to argue, Sad really...

Maybe they were used to it because that is what itunes and those other music services offer. And that listening test you are talking about was totally screwed up. The ear buds I use (Skullcandy) can dig deeper and clearer than the old Audiophile Sennheisers I used to use.

Now if they had run the 320k through the ear buds the kids would have heard a difference.

Who's the one arguing, Joe?

quad is only submitting a correlative study. You have to realize the humor in your statement that "that listening test you are talking about was totally screwed up" (A test presumably done on a larger population than one) because your skullcandy earbuds wer better than the the old Sennheiser's. You're making quad's point for him in your ignorance. He is saying that the test results are a function of preference (or perception), not performance. Which is exactly what you are saying, although you don't know it. this is what we call irony.

For your reference, as an owner of 5 or 6 pairs of skullcandy headphones (i always find myself at airports or skilifts without a pair and have to buy new ones), skullcandy are bottom of the pile along with beats and countless others in terms of musical reproduction, but theyre enjoyable with their bloated bass and relaxed highs. Now that I've said that, does it make it true? No, but a consensus can make it relevant. Until then, it's just one man's opinion

Joe08867

I am also saying that if you feed them crap they will learn to like it. And after I posted I realized I was the one arguing. Oops,

Also as far as the ear buds vs over the ears go, I prefer buds personally. Just for the fact that they really filter out the outside sounds more than anything. I don't think they sound better per say.

quadzilla

Which is all I was saying. People get used to listening to certain things, and that becomes their preference. I can't stand 128 kbps over cheap earbuds, but that's just me.

Joe08867

quadzilla wrote: »

Wow... even the most basic of understandings eludes you. Sad, really. I wasn't arguing with anything. I simply made a statement that the article asked which one sounded better, and someone in this thread seemed surprised that over half the people responding "got it wrong". But since it's a subjective test, there is no "wrong". It's a matter of preference. Then I cited a study that proves that what's "better" isn't necessarily what people always prefer. If you have a problem with facts, then feel free to put me on ignore. In fact, I would implore you to do so.

Nice, now I am an idiot. Thanks for that. Have a nice day.

newrival

Joe08867 wrote: »

Also as far as the ear buds vs over the ears go, I prefer buds personally. Just for the fact that they really filter out the outside sounds more than anything.

Im with you there. If I'm anywhere but home, the isolation of buds is fantastic. At home in a quiet environment, for my ears, nothing beats an open-back set of cans like my audio technicas or grados.