[MacedonianHero]

At work with my RE0s (pretty darn clear IEMs that when I A-B'd them with my ER-4Ps were pretty much on par) and straight through my computer, I could not really tell.

But at home with my DacMagic --> MAD Ear+HD Amp --> HD800s, it's pretty darn easy to tell the difference.

Setup and gear is very, very important. But I did think the difference was not as night and day as I would have expected.

 

[robjrock]

Gonna give this a try when my uDac comes in, because my laptops sound card isn't worth bothering with.

Gave myself a dodgy blind test the other day using my iPhone, with a 160VBR and a 512VBR AAC (yes, the iphone can play AACs up to 512kbit!) and I guessed right, but it wasn't painfully obvious. Yes, treble is the give away. But lower bitrate Mp3s seem to have a thinner sound all around too. But still, I was far from sure.

Needless to say I was a little relieved though.

Sometimes I think having high bitrate or lossless files (I intend to wipe my collection soon and start a fresh from CDs > Flac and then use 320kbit on my iPhone) is not so much about making it sound better, but assuring yourself you are giving your sweet set-up the best music quality possible. Just in case.

 

[mamaloney]

I passed. the second one sounds a lot more compressed.

 

[dongringo]

I got it right the first time and thought it was obvious using RS1i and ibasso D4.

 

[Armaegis]

Failed both tests

 

[ninjikiran]

Both of these songs were not obvious but I have heard MP3's that sound day and night better @ 320kbps for untrained ears such as my own.

@320 kbps some files are indistinguishable from lossless depending on the song and encoding.

Edit: With my DT770 Pro it was fairly difficult(or maybe I just wasn't looking for the right parts) but on my MDR-7506's the graininess in the guys voice something I could easily pick up on. On both cans I picked up a slightly higher in volume hiss as well but to be honest it doesn't really impede on the overall quality. This was with the second test posted. The first one posted I can't say I heard a difference.

 

[TheOtus]

Passed the latter test with int. soundcard and portaPro. Some parts clearly showed the difference. Still sort of simple track to compare bitrates, but much more reasonable than the first one.

 

[Palpatine]

Passed, but I did listen twice to be sure.

 

[Mi3zu]

Got the second one right, but failed the first.
But setup isn't great SR60's out of int. soundcard.
On the first one the cymbals sounded different but I liked the 2nd ones more so I chose B =) . The second one has some parts where it is a bit obvious tho.

 

[souladdikt]

Passed both tests using Shure E4's (SCL4's) straight out my macbook. Interestingly, I tried it with my SRH840's and it was much more difficult for me to discern a difference.

 

[beamthegreat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by robjrock /img/forum/go_quote.gif ...Gave myself a dodgy blind test the other day using my iPhone, with a 160VBR and a 512VBR AAC (yes, the iphone can play AACs up to 512kbit!) case. ...

Actually, the Iphone/Ipod can play up to 1411 kbps. I have converted all my music to Apple lossless format and put it in my ipod touch

 

[nealric]

Quote:

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.

I did pass that one. Much more complex passage than the original. I had to concentrate on the percussion (which I find most likely to suffer from compression) and a/b it a few times to be sure though.

Really though, It's not a night and day difference for this track (although there are a few 128k tracks I have where it is painfully obvious). For 95% of the listening public (those who are using white ipod earbuds or similar), 128k Mp3 quality is plenty.

 

[anetode]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tru\head /img/forum/go_quote.gif The bitrate of mp3's is given away easily in the distortion of the highs, especially percussion such as cymbals and piercing vocals.

Agreed, that was a dead give-away. The high frequency noise was annoying in both versions, though slightly more tolerable on the 320.

 

[eucariote]

My first test was with a lowly computer soundcard and Klipsch computer speakers. Even my girlfriend laying on the bed on the other side of the room could hear the difference between 128kbps and 256kbps.

 

[beamthegreat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by eucariote /img/forum/go_quote.gif My first test was with a lowly computer soundcard and Klipsch computer speakers. Even my girlfriend laying on the bed on the other side of the room could hear the difference between 128kbps and 256kbps.

Really? Even if I played it with my IE8 with V-can amp and a decent sound card, it was still very hard for me to tell the difference between the 128 and 320 kbps file.