[ohhgourami]

Quote:

this test further enforces my belief that mp3 is fine and i don't need any of this flac nonsense. i heard very little differences between the 128kbps and the 320kbps mp3s. in fact i voted the wrong one but wasn't satisfied so i went back to re listen. i head slight differences for the better in the 320kbps track in the drums area. but the difference i noticed was not enough to convince me that it should take up 2x the space. but i digress, i will continue to use 320kbps because i know they are better. maybe not by much but most downloads i find are in 320kbps nowadays anyways. but i am perfectly satisfied with 128kbps if need be. you guys are way way way to picky.

I really recommend you take a look at this thread:
http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/549464/highest-frequency-you-can-hear
 
Take the tests and see what you can hear up to.
 

 

[TMRaven]

I can agree with that idea.  In general most anything related to audiophilia can be considered nonsensical by everyday standards.  Even after guessing track 1, finding the answer out, and then going back and listening again, the differences magically become slightly more apparent.  It just goes to show you how much placebo plays a factor into stuff like this.
 
The sample is barely busy at all though, so naturally 128kbps wouldn't be too much a strain on the music, but other types of songs would fare better in such an a/b comparison.  I can agree with stuff like 320kbps vs flac, differences between cables and spending upwards of 3-4x as much for a dac that's barely any better than an entry level one.  It's all rather silly depending on who looks at it.

 

[johnnyw]

Got it right with my Ety HF5 and onboard laptop sound. The higher quality version sounded slightly cleaner overall. I noticed that if I tried to concentrate on the music, it was actually harder for me to tell the difference, but if I sorta "phased" myself out and just looked at other things, I seemed to sense subconsciously that the 128kbps track sounded muddier 

. 

 

[MohawkUS]

I heard it quite easily on my ASUS Essence > AD900s. There is a point with a slight sway in the vocals, and I only heard it on the 320 sample.

 

[TMRaven]

Quote:

I really recommend you take a look at this thread:
http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/549464/highest-frequency-you-can-hear
 
Take the tests and see what you can hear up to.
 

I don't see how that really has any influence on being able to hear the difference between 128kbps and 320kbps on a file that doesn't properly take advantage of 320kbps in the first place.  I'm young and only 22, and can perfectly hear 20khz, but that has utterly nothing to do with detailed listening.  If I can hear 20khz should I be able to hear distinct differences between the 128kbps and 320kbps files on this topic?  I can hear them, but nothing more than a 5% or so difference.  I'm sure the same can be said for the guy you're trying to throw that at as well.
 

 

[bcasey25raptor]

Quote:

I really recommend you take a look at this thread:
http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/549464/highest-frequency-you-can-hear
 
Take the tests and see what you can hear up to.
 

i made it to 19khz no sweat.

 

[ohhgourami]

Quote:

i made it to 19khz no sweat.

And you did not crank your volume to super high levels?  Also make sure you aren't just hearing the hiss that comes out of the beginning and end...
 

 

[bcasey25raptor]

Quote:

And you did not crank your volume to super high levels?  Also make sure you aren't just hearing the hiss that comes out of the beginning and end...
 

volume is at 30% and no i am hearing the high pitch not the fuzz at the beginning and ending

 

[crayonhead]

I ended up getting them flipped. I can hear the differences, but it's not like "ah..AH HA".. it was more like.. "hmm..oh. I hear some difference.." I can't really tell because all my music is encoded 128 kbps out of the box or flac.
 
BTW, does anyone know what the song is? kinda catchy.
 
Edit: Wrong bitrate settings

 

[ohhgourami]

Quote:

volume is at 30% and no i am hearing the high pitch not the fuzz at the beginning and ending

I'll say thats pretty good, better than me considering how loud you claim you listen to your music.
 
Bit surprised you couldn't tell the difference between 320 and 128 kbps though.  I still think 320 cbr doesn't take up much room.  Lossless starts getting a bit heavy though then you realize there's 24bit then everything looks light...
 

 

[bcasey25raptor]

Quote:

I'll say thats pretty good, better than me considering how loud you claim you listen to your music.
 
Bit surprised you couldn't tell the difference between 320 and 128 kbps though.  I still think 320 cbr doesn't take up much room.  Lossless starts getting a bit heavy though then you realize there's 24bit then everything looks light...
 

i no longer play my music loud. i have decided i enjoy music to much to waste my hearing in such a short period of time. i usually play at around 30% on my computer which i assume is around 50db

 

[mooshimuushi]

I got it wrong. I was using the apple earphones. . .
 
There was a slight louder volume on the 320kbps, apart from that. Nothing.

 

[KaliKot]

whoops double post

 

[KaliKot]

Pretty easy seeing as the other one buffered longer but I played the 128kbps first and was thinking "This HAS to be 128kbps" so I got it right. Noticed that the other one buffered longer and immediately hit me that it has better quality

 

[Pianist]

Well, I haven't taken the test yet, but I can usually distinguish 128 kbps files from 192+ fairly easily. I can also distinguish 192 kbps from lossless pretty easily too - the main difference to me is in the dynamic range. I doubt I can tell the difference between a 256-320 kbps file and lossless though.