[yepimonfire]

Quote:

I want to point out beforehand that I have perfect hearing, don't listen to loud music, no history of ear problems, etc. I'm still a teenager also, so my hearing should be better for that fact.
 
Anyways, I have tested this on my Computer + Asus Xonar STX and iPhone -> FiiO E11 using both the Monster Miles Davis Tribute, Monster Turbine Pro Gold, Beyer DT770, and Beyer DT990.
 
 
I failed around half of the blind AB tests, and honestly could not find a difference. I have had multiple friends who has tried this also, and they only did slightly better, if not the same as I did. I know I don't have the best gear in the world, but certainly, shouldn't differentiating 128 and 320 in blind tests be 100% easily? I tested on several volumes, different times of the day, and even in the dark (It enhances hearing a bit, really.)
 
Especially since most of the "OMG 128 is garbage" comes from people who have similar if not inferior gear to me. Even the cymbals, which some claim to be "painfully bad" on 128, can only be differentiated by playing the specific part repeatedly on both mp3 clips. My music selection was mostly Lincoln Park with some Adele, using CD Ripped 320 and online downloaded 128.
 
Can someone explain this? Because this is clearly not a night and day difference, even for a couple teenagers who have perfectly fine hearing.

i have yet to hear MP3 in 128kbps that wasn't clearly inferior to a higher bitrate. Perhaps with some of the better algorithms it's possible. OGG and AAC do a pretty good job of fooling me at 128k

 

[bigshot]

I think folks are talking about LAME.

 

[lovleylady]

Quote:

... Note that Lincoln Park is notoriously poorly recorded, and even Adele's lovely voice is killed by heavy compression and limiting in the mastering process.
...

First, are we talking about Linkin Park?
Second, how do you tell that something is badly recorded rather than the artist/mixer intending it to sound in a way you happen not to like?
I guess I get it with Adele, sounds like crap, hard to believe that's wanted.
 
But with music like Linkin Park's, distortion might be wanted?
I'd like to say they are just notoriously bad.
 
Cheers!

 

[bigshot]

Intentionally poorly recorded is still poorly recorded, isn't it?

 

[lovleylady]

Quote:

can somebody please tell me if this site's test is accurate/fair?
 
http://mp3ornot.com
 

http://mp3ornot.com/badge/178670.png
 
It's mine, I got the feel for how long it took for the 320 to load vs the 128.
 
I really didn't make an effort to distinguish the three from each other sonically. You shouldn't draw any conclusions from that test since one can get a good result without even listening to the clips. Maybe people who get good results don't think about it but it can still affect their pick and make them and others believe they hear a different. Not saying you can't hear a difference just that the test is flawed.
 
Cheers!

 

[lovleylady]

Quote:

Intentionally poorly recorded is still poorly recorded, isn't it?

Hehe, you're right, of course.
 
Cheers!

 

[Xinze]

Poorly recorded or not, there should be a clear difference from the 320 to 128. I didn't mention that I've tried FLAC vs 320 before, straight CD rip vs online download, and 0 difference there too.

 

[yepimonfire]

Quote:

Poorly recorded or not, there should be a clear difference from the 320 to 128. I didn't mention that I've tried FLAC vs 320 before, straight CD rip vs online download, and 0 difference there too.

i agree. i have a lot of poorly recorded black metal albums that will send any mp3 below 192k into artifacts, and then i have stuff (take foo fighters for example) that will sound halfway decent at 128k. 

 

[KT66]

The recordings are superb, it's the masterings that are *****.
 
If you listen to highly compressed modern stuff, "Hi Fidelity" is not required. Unfortunately.
 
try the test with Take Five or Folk Singer.

 

[Lord Voldemort]

Quote:

Poorly recorded or not, there should be a clear difference from the 320 to 128. I didn't mention that I've tried FLAC vs 320 before, straight CD rip vs online download, and 0 difference there too.

If we're talking about AAC, there is no "clear" difference. Usually people who do well in distinguishing between the two bitrates have experience in knowing what to look out for beforehand (soundstage, treble quality, filler noise, etc.) so their mind is better able to focus on these specific aspects of the music. In other words, the differences are only very small proportionately to the overall presentation. And if we also take into consideration that some recordings are better distinguished between different bitrates not merely for their recording quality but also for their aspects of sound (a congested passage for instance), we can conclude that we can't always expect to find a "clear" difference between 128 and 320. 

 

[BoxerOrBag]

Quote:

http://mp3ornot.com/badge/178670.png
 
It's mine, I got the feel for how long it took for the 320 to load vs the 128.
 
I really didn't make an effort to distinguish the three from each other sonically. You shouldn't draw any conclusions from that test since one can get a good result without even listening to the clips. Maybe people who get good results don't think about it but it can still affect their pick and make them and others believe they hear a different. Not saying you can't hear a difference just that the test is flawed.
 
Cheers!

 
thank you! that was exactly my question.
There is a sonic difference though. I don't want to ruin the fun for everybody else, but I'll just say that for those that can hear the difference, the score would not look like that.

 

[El_Doug]

well that mp3ornot site is really nice exercise - as expected, the difference was clearly distinguishable once I spent enough time on each, but if I were "listening" instead of "analyzing," I'm certain I wouldn't know the difference at all, ever. 
 

 
http://mp3ornot.com/badge/164579.png

 

[lovleylady]

Quote:

well that mp3ornot site is really nice exercise - as expected, the difference was clearly distinguishable once I spent enough time on each, but if I were "listening" instead of "analyzing," I'm certain I wouldn't know the difference at all, ever.
...

Statements like that is much more credible than claims of "night and day"-differences.
Do you remember what you listened for more specifically?
 
I find it very hard.
 
Cheers!

 

[adamlr]

Quote:

 
All the impedance does is change the distribution of voltage and current.
 
What will make a difference is the sensitivity of the headphones. High sensitivity headphones will reveal more noise as the SNR ratio suffers (think IEMs plugged into a noisy front panel audio socket on a computer. The whining noise has a constant power, which turn into a much larger SPL through sensitive earphones than low sensitivity ones).
 
This is a constant noise though, not for "artefact hunting". There's no reason I can think of for one headphone to be more revealing of compression artefacts than another.

 
Quote:

 
I think for mp3 and some other formats and encoders, the artifacts are mostly high frequency.  A treble-tilted headphone would make those things easier to hear, with less auditory masking of the problems I guess.
 
With a low enough bitrate and certain preset and young enough ears, you could detect the presence of the lowpass filtering, which should be easier with headphones with good treble extension.

 
thank you both very much.
 
whats artifact?

 

[xnor]

From Wikipedia: "Compression artifacts in compressed audio typically show up as ringing, pre-echo, "birdie artifacts", drop-outs, rattling, warbling, metallic ringing, an underwater feeling, hissing, or "graininess"."