[Earwax]

Probably only portable users care about 128kbps encoding, so I'll post this here.

Rjamorim ran another of his famous listening tests and posted the results over at Hydrogenaudio.
The HA thread: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?showtopic=18378&
Full results web site: http://www.rjamorim.com/test/mp3-128/results.html

In short, Lame made the best sounding 128k MP3s. Not exactly a big surprise, though the relative rankings of some other encoders was a bit surprising.

 

[br--]

I don't see why Hydrogen Audio is doing listening tests for 128kbps mp3s. It seems like a pointless endeavor in my opinion.

I liken it to doing listening tests for 64kbps MP3s. Well it's fine and dandy that LAME is better than the others at that bitrate, but when it comes down to it, it still sounds awful. Practically, no one will use it.

It would be alot more productive testing MP3s at useful bitrates like 192, 224, 256, and 320. Bitrates people will actually use.

 

[lan]

Well they gotta keep themselves busy somehow no?

Most certainly we don't use 128kbps but I'm sure non audiophiles do or when you want to pack a lot of songs in a small amount of space.

 

[Earwax]

Quote:

Originally posted by br-- I don't see why Hydrogen Audio is doing listening tests for 128kbps mp3s. It seems like a pointless endeavor in my opinion. I liken it to doing listening tests for 64kbps MP3s. Well it's fine and dandy that LAME is better than the others at that bitrate, but when it comes down to it, it still sounds awful. Practically, no one will use it.

I think there's lots of people still using 128k, but most of them probably don't read HA.

[ I use 128 on my flash player, but that player sees less and less use these days. ]

Quote:

Originally posted by br-- It would be alot more productive testing MP3s at useful bitrates like 192, 224, 256, and 320. Bitrates people will actually use.

The reason for not doing so, that HA always cites, is there aren't enough people willing to take part in testing who have ears and equipment capable of ABXing good encoders at high bit rates.

Since so many here claim that they can hear differences even at high bit rates, I'd really like to see some of them start to take part in some organized codec testing.

 

[Iron_Dreamer]

Quote:

Originally posted by Earwax Since so many here claim that they can hear differences even at high bit rates, I'd really like to see some of them start to take part in some organized codec testing.

I guess some of us prefer listening to music instead of codecs

 

[Stephonovich]

I enjoy music, but I also find it fun to compare codecs, and different options for them. Geek thing, I suppose.

I still don't get people who spend their life just comparing codecs and bitrates, and never actually enjoying music. I swear, some people at HA do that...

(-:Stephonovich

 

[lan]

Quote:

Originally posted by Stephonovich I still don't get people who spend their life just comparing codecs and bitrates,

I don't get that when they don't use the most resolving of equipment.

 

[Stephonovich]

Yes, that too. Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever seen someone mention on HA what headphones/speakers or source they used. Interesting. Here they are tweaking codecs within an inch of their life, discussing the 1% quality increase of 15-18KHz frequencies they've just gotten, and yet they never say what they're using to hear such details. Odd.

(-:Stephonovich

 

[CrawlingEye]

I think their fault is in using mp3's, but that's my opinion (and findings).

 

[Stephonovich]

Yeah, I like Ogg better too

-q6 gives the same, if not better quality as --aps, and usually you save a half a MB or so, too.

(-:Stephonovich

 

[blessingx]

Quote:

Originally posted by CrawlingEye I think their fault is in using mp3's, but that's my opinion (and findings).

Well it's a MP3 test afterall. Cross codec tests have been done in the past. AAC is up next month.

 

[CrawlingEye]

Quote:

Originally posted by blessingx Well it's a MP3 test afterall. Cross codec tests have been done in the past. AAC is up next month.

I know, I know. I just figured I'd mention that I think the mp3 vs mp3 software discussion's kind of old (no offense). My comment was intended to imply that I think mp3's a dying format (as far as sound quality goes) and it's kind of senseless to nitpick between which encoder to use.

 

[averydonovan]

I have found that transcoding my MPCs over to 128Kbps MP3s has worked fine on my IMP-350 with MX500s. No glaring problems, but it's definately not something I'd use with better phones.

And I rarely post at Hydrogen Audio since they don't want subjective claims of any sort and I don't want to back up what I hear with 10 ABX tests

 

[Earwax]

ABXing on a PC is somewhat interesting, in that it forces one to be objective about what you're hearing, no placebo effects allowed.

But still, the whole reason I encode is for use on a portable, not on a PC, so my ultimate test is to compare results achieved on the portable.

 

[Stephonovich]

Quote:

Originally posted by donovansmith I have found that transcoding my MPCs over to 128Kbps MP3s has worked fine on my IMP-350 with MX500s. No glaring problems, but it's definately not something I'd use with better phones.

This is probably the one time I wouldn't have a problem with transcoding. MPC is so high to begin with, you could probably go to an --aps file and it'd be fine. Actually, I might try that today. Still, safer to do from a .wav whenever possible.

When you're going to a lower bitrate (i.e. 128 KBPS), does it not matter if you're transcoding, as long as the original lossy is higher in bitrate as your target?

(-:Stephonovich