[mrAdrian]

As the title says. Self explanatory
 
http://www.noiseaddicts.com/2009/03/mp3-sound-quality-test-128-320/
 
 
Both me and Dad (who always bug me about lossless or 320 sounds better) failed, and i also realized more people failed!
 
Weeps away, maybe I should sell my everything 

 
 
p.s. please do not reveal the answer on this thread. Only tell us your results and maybe what differences did you spot.

 

[ChipnDalebowl]

I gave it a shot, and failed. He didn't pick a hard track to encode so hence, it wasn't too hard for the encoders. Additionally, if he used the latest version of LAME, its especially difficult to tell as latest versions are more transparent around the 128kbps mark now according to most hydrogenaudio folk. I tend to agree with it.

 

[natashaful]

Well i got it right, The vocals alone have a slight tone difference and you can hear the detail slighty more in his voice, Not to mention some of the other sounds.
 
Nattie.

 

[Ishcabible]

Got it correct with a Koss Technician VFR and onboard laptop sound (They were the closest to me...) The decay is much more realistic in the 320kbps one, and vocals are more detailed.

 

[Arleus]

I was successful - the snare drums seemed to have a bit more snap and punch in the 320 file. I'm sure there are plenty of other tracks that I wouldn't have been able to tell the difference on, and if it was encoded at anything higher than 128 I'm sure I would have really struggled to notice any difference on any track. I'm normally very happy with 192, to be honest.
 
(listened on my 702s)

 

[nanaholic]

Got it correct after switching back between the 2 clips twice. Was using my W1000x.  

What stood out for me was the bass is much cleaner on the 320kbps whereas the 128kbps is more muddled with notes sort of overlapping.  
 
I agree though that the song isn't very taxing on the codec.   

 

[kn19h7]

The difference in dynamic range is quite noticeable.. this test is nothing compared to this

 

[RPGWiZaRD]

I thought that was quite easy to be honest, immediatly heard which was which.
 
I think the years I've spent finetuning my EQ settings which allow 0.1 increments must have paid off to hear such subtle differences.

 

[kn19h7]

^^^ LOL you've revealed the answer dude

 

[RPGWiZaRD]

Quote:

^^^ LOL you've revealed the answer dude

I didn't expect people to read comments b4 taking test but will edit the post.
 

 

[TheGomdoRi]

LOL ninja edit the answer !

 

[Coolsax]

my hearing must not be golden then b/c i couldn't hear the difference on my AD700s,, but as others pointed it out its not a really complex arrangement I wonder if it would be easier to tell with a busier song. I'll still encode all rips at FLAC for home listening and 320kbps for mobile listening just in case however since DB poweramp can do dual encoding
 
of course i could just barely hear at 12K on their how high can you hear page as well

 

[LizardKing1]

I got it right. I'm using a pair of RE-Zeros which are very detailed, through a Fiio E7, and I bet that with some less detailed cans the difference wouldn't be so present. But I only listened once to each track and there was immediately no doubt.

 

[moodyrn]

I could hear the difference, but I agree with others about the quality of the recording. Both files sounded like 128 to me(well maybe 96 and 128). That may be the worst sounding  320 bit rate sample I've ever listened to. Like the song though.

 

[TMRaven]

I don't think the track was busy enough to give 320kbps enough of an opportunity to shine.  I took the test and I picked clip 1.  It seemed a tad more clear, but only like 2-5% more sharp on the drum hits and whatnot, whereas the second one seemed only the slightest bit more liquidy and not as snappy.  I wouldn't say the difference is easily noticeable and much clearer on the 320kbps file, but then again sensationalists will be sensationalists.