[joelongwood]

Had to listen a few times to each clip, but was able to correctly identify each. The 320 mps clip was fuller and had more "body," while the 128 mps was thinner and had more than a trace of distortion in the upper range.
Equipment used: Powerbook/Westone UM2.
Hey, since I'm closing in on 62, I'm pretty amazed at my ability to detect these differences. I guess I've had a lot of practice.

 

[TheOtus]

Well, portaPro and (pretty damn bad) integrated soundcard. I was able to tell them from each other, but didn´t exactly know how it was supposed to sound in the first place. Didn´t get it correct. Neither sounded bad in any way with this equipment though... Bad clip as said. If I´ve gotten it right, the less content, the less bitrate needed to sound good.

 

[Swazidoughman]

Got it right with SRH440s

 

[David.M]

i didn't even need to play clip B

my beyers already told me the first clip was the right one

 

[Armaegis]

Weird, I remember doing this test last year and I could tell the difference. Today... they sounded the same to me.

 

[loopfreak]

Soundstage was a give away

 

[cck5]

could tell the difference with grado 225I no dac.

 

[Blisse]

Only plays in one ear... not helpful...

 

[stang]

Something is wrong with your system

 

[nealric]

Tried the test on my triple-fi's and failed, but I think my hearing was impacted a bit because the volume on that site was WAY higher than it was in foobar, so I got blasted when I first played it. I also found the track really annoying- so that didn't help.

I would like to hear the same test randomized with varying bitrates: 92, 128, 192, 256, 320, FLAC, WAV.

My personal experience: 92 sounds awful and obvious. 128 can be pretty transparent, but you will notice artifacts on certain tracks, 192 is almost always transparent except on a few tracks. I've never been able to differentiate 256 and up.

 

[Badd99]

Very bad song for this test as there is barley anything going on during the clip making it much harder. I find myself being able to tell the difference very very easily when its rock or heavier stuff.

 

[Pianist]

Ok, I couldn't tell the difference at first and got it wrong. But now, that I am comparing again, I can clearly tell that the B sample has noticeable distortion when Pavarotti is singing the long note. The A clip sounds much smoother. I am using Senn IE8 and some integrated soundcard.

O know I can easily tell the difference between 192 kbps music and flac if I am familiar with the music. 192 usually sounds simplified with less dynamic range and ambient information. With these clips I cannot seem to detect any difference in dynamic range though.

 

[Blisse]

Quote:

Originally Posted by stang /img/forum/go_quote.gif Something is wrong with your system

Yeah, I didn't realize it until I started playing some music. Oh well, time for upgrade.

 

[paulb09]

I did one the other day (Do 320kbps mp3 files really sound better? Take the test! | NoiseAddicts music and audio blog) and got it right too. It's not easy for me though, and I'd like to do more test to see if I am consistent. However, the bass on the one above seemed slightly cleaner and full bodied at 320, but on the one the OP posted the sharpness of the vocals gave it away, having a cleaner edge at their most piercing point. The instruments right at the end also seemed to be separated that little bit more.

 

[earthpeople]

I took the test that paulb09 posted and got it right with the same equipment. It was much easier IMO because of the music used. What I find interesting is that ~11k out of ~20k people chose the lower quality file as better...