[bcasey25raptor]

Quote:

Its fairly close but if you critically listen to each individual instrument there are definite differences.  texture on the guitar was one major giveaway, as well as extension and clean impact of the drums being more consistent in the 320.  The attack and decay of the vocals, as well as the bass guitar, are also much clearer on the 320 kbps.  Maraccas sound much more scratchy and dithery on the 128 compared to the 320.
What makes it difficult is that these differences don't seem to be constant - at certain points some of these differences are less obvious that at others - overall though if you listen for consistency of the music this is also revealing of which is which - the 128 is less consistent in its convincing reproduction - at times it sounds a bit botched in one or other instruments.

in all honesty who other then audiophiles listen that intently into there music. i know i just try and sit back and enjoy it and it can be really hard to tell a difference. i think people on here obsess over this to much. i am satisfied with 192kbps or higher. if i can only get 128kbps or i am low on space that will satisfy me enough.

 

[drez]

that 128 recording is pretty good though - older 128 recordings are full of artifacts in the treble.  If you are not concentrating you probably wouldn't notice, but if you do focus on the music when listening or wish to listen to the individual instruments then the advantages of better formats come to the fore - even 320 is a bit hit and miss compared to lossless/WAVE.  Music is still enjoyable at 128, just if I had a choice I would always chose the better quality format.

 

[elwappo99]

I agree the treble is really good on the 128. I definitely picked up a difference right away. It was pretty clear to me. Also, most of the stuff was electronic, which is sound produced through amplifiers and then recorded. More traditional acoustic music really makes a difference when it comes to recorded quality.

 

[LizardKing1]

Yeah, I was going to ask that: I assume 2 things would make the most difference in spotting sound from 128 to 320, and if someone could correct me, that would be great:
 
1) The source being vynil would make the original recording have much more detail, some of it still in the 320
 
2) It being some kind of music with more acoustic presence, like Soul or Jazz
 
I recently downloaded Blue Train by John Coltrane in 24-bit FLAC, ripped from vynil. My DAC is 16-bit, but oh well. I haven't had a good listen yet, but I think it's one of the most detailed things I've heard through headphones.

 

[Confispect]

Quote:

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.

!+
 
I didnt even listen to it for 15 seconds before I picked Clip 1.
 
As far as bitrate goes I more say good mastered songs.
 
I've heard 160 sound good. Just depends on the recording.

 

[TheUbiquitous]

Well I could hear very clear differences between both, but I chose the wrong one!

Now that I read here I see, one of the things I claerly heard was a difference in the bass, and I thought the first one sounded too "thin".
I have done blind tests with flac, 320 VBR ogg and 128 VBR ogg and I can tell the last two appart, flac from 320 less so. I'v done it with "waiting for the worms", it's impossible to not tell which is which!

 

[Sesam]

Yay I could tell a difference and picked the correct one, so I guess that means I didn't waste my money on quality headphones 

 
And for the record, while this may be completely unscientific, I detect quality by listening to the high pitched sounds, low bitrate has a signature "tshhh" sound to it.  

 

[LizardKing1]

Yep it sounds a bit distorted, I get that too in low-fi systems, like a portable radio.

 

[anetode]

The distorted vocals on the track at seven seconds were a clear indication of compression. Didn't need to play the rest of the track.

 

[Ak-Boss]

Not really enough going on in the song to make the difference as clear as it could be but I did get it right. The give away for me was the snare and cymbal, it had a lot more detail in the 320 version. beats pro through imac.

 

[fortheus]

I got it quite quickly using 6 years old DELL laptop with shure 215. basic logic of lossy compression is it trim out 'unheard sound' in lower/upper region. Which is why the most noticeable should be bass and cymbals crispness. If you can hear this lossy compression, you may sometimes found that flac files found around the internet also come from lossy compression and then converted to flac. Sometimes the master recording itself is not good enough (getting this from my collection)

 

[Dhimay]

The hihats made the difference for me. Clip 2 is clearly missing some high frequencies--sound akin to the cheaper hihats. Listened using mac-mini => D2000 (no dac/amp).

 

[Brooko]

Ok - here's another one.
 
The results of this will be a lot more interesting - because you can repeat the test over and over (it really is blind) and it will give you an accumulated percentage.
 
Will be interested to see the (truthful) results - mine were not great 

 the first time I tried it.
 
http://mp3ornot.com/

 

[Dhimay]

^^

 
Admittedly, it was pretty close, but I found the 320 kbps tad bit more dynamic with fuller frequencies. I will have to try this again after getting my amp/dac for D2000.

 

[keroro]

 
I'm using my laptop n esw10jpn....damn, i wouldn't even bother if i'm on the go...so will there be any audible difference between lossless and 320kbps?
Wondering if all the effort searching for lossless is jus self-deceiving