[kpxgq]

i seriously cant tell the difference between 128 and 256+.... am i deaf? maybe my PC sound system just sucks... Creative Live 5.1 platinum and cambridge 4.1 speakers?

 

[Peddler]

The difference in chalk and cheese. Listen to the higher frequencies. Cymbals etc tend to distort. Also, the differences are more pronounced through headphone listening.

I don't waste my time with 128K - the absolute minimum for me is 192.

 

[huy_ha]

I'd have to agree with Peddler, especially about cymbals, though it's often hard for me to tell the difference through computer speakers. When I run the line out from my sound card to my main system or on headphones, it's quite obvious the difference between 128 and 192+. It gets really hard (for me) to tell from 256 and up.

 

[dhwilkin]

It's also much easier to tell if the music was at least a decent recording to begin w/.

 

[Nezer]

If you can't hear the difference than good for you! Also make sure you use a good encoder. I prefer LAME myself.

I encode everything with lame --r3mix -b 32 -B 320 which puts everything in joint stereo varible bit rate with the minimum bitrate of 32 and max of 320. My collection averages around 200 and I can't pick-out the difference from the original. Note I can *hear* a difference but I can't tell which was which.

If you can't hear a difference now I don't recommend listening for one. Once you hear it you will obsess over it as it will be *ALL* you can ever hear.

As for what happens, it's always in the high frequency range and it's distorted in an odd way. It's not anything that's easily described except as an unnatural phase-wierded distortion. Once you hear it you can pick it out of anything. I can tell sitting in a noisy restuarant if their background music that comes over sat. is compressed. But, my ears are really sensitive to those frequencies yours may not be and that is not a bad thing (unless three is hearing damage, in whcih case it is).

 

[beowulf]

I'm a MP3 snob. All I do is 320k LAME with Ultraplex DAE and EAC in Secure Mode.
And even then, I think lossy compression is evil.

 

[Gluegun]

Uh, with THOSE speakers? yea, there's a very very good reason you can't tell the difference.

heheheh.....

You need a new system, man...

 

[Eagle_Driver]

I totally agree with Gluegun here.

Most computer sound systems that you can buy mass-market SUCK. Period.

 

[kaiwei]

My friends thinks I'm nuts. I use a lossless compression (www.monkeysaudio.com).

 

[Xevion]

Well, 128k sounds like complete crap, even on bad speakers, or in a moving car. First - use LAME and not Xing, Xing at 320 sounds about the same as LAME at 224, and has other problems too (Like all response over 14 or 15Khz is just a garbled mess of distiortion).

The biggest difference between a 128k mp3 and the original will be the quantization noises. To an untrained but aware ear, it just sounds like distorted treble. But - they are basically artifacts that come out of the compressed sound, because it is approximated, it almost sounds like birds chirping on particularly bad recordings, is harsh, grating, and evry unplesant. It isn't distortion, but actually added junk noise into the sound.

The second biggest difference is bass performance. You definantly won't notice this on your computer speakers, but on my speakers and headphones the difference is very clear. My biggest example track for this would be Enya's Sail Away, at the beginning of the song the bassline is something to the effect of pizzacato strings and an accompanying synth line or something, and I have 2 mp3s of it that I have downloaded. One is a 224k MP3, and the other a 128k one. The first thing I notice on a casual listen is that the low quality version sounds bright, it almost sounds arier then the regular version. When Enya starts singing, her voice has what first seems to almost be a garbly edge. Slightly more careful listening shows this brightness is actually basically semi-random high frequency sounds, and the edge on her voice has more, lower versions of the same - it just sounds garbled.

The second is the amount of impact the bass line is lacking - in the 224k one, the bass is much more pronounced (This is midbass/deep bass), to a very large degree. I am talking about something I can really feel the difference in with headphones at a normal listening level, and through speakers the difference you feel is more noticable but hear is less noticable. Note that exxagerating the bass a little bit basically makes up for the thin sound of the low quality mp3s.

As you go to higher quality mp3s, these quantization noises get a lot less prominent, but are still there. Casual listening to a 192k mp3 just results in a slightly harsh sound to my ears. More closely, the same noises that plauge 128k are there, but are much much more subtle. Silibance is less of a problem then 128k, but is quite bad compared to CD quality on a good recording. 192k also has a somewhat grainy sound.

256k is naturally even harder to tell the difference with versus CD, but somtimes it is still clear, to an experienced listener. Silibance is slightly exxagerated, on complex passages quantization sounds can still be notably audible, and while bass performance is much better then lower quality mp3s, it still isn't quite as full as CD.

96k mono/32Khz I like more then 128k/44Khz stereo, simply because there are much less quantization noises present. Sure, the sound is a bit thin and of course lacks ambience, air, and treble extension, but the sound is just so much cleaner then 128k/44Khz stereo it isn't even funny.

So, the bottom line is that I have a few 96k mp3s that are listenable (music), ranging to 192k mp3s that are unplesant, and 256k mp3s I am quite unsatisfied with.

 

[fjhuerta]

LAME + EAC should be the only allowed combination for creating MP3s. They work beautifully.

I encoded my entire (+400 CDs) CD collection at VBR from 160-320 KB/sec, and it sounds terrific. I have been far too lazy to look for differences between the original and the copy; all I remember is a particular classical track where there was some sort of sonic "dirt" or grunge. But if you don't have the original for comparison, it's very hard to pinpoint it.

 

[jodokast]

Heheh.....you won't hear the diffference /w those speakers. Trust me - I used to have them.

As for mp3 bit rate I"m attempting to train my ears by listening to just uncompressed wavs. Heh.......damn I need to hook up a RAID.

 

[Audio-Me]

Put your winamp EQ settings on neutral! You probably have some setting that's bloating them econo speakers.

I'm sure you can hear the difference, you just don't notice it.

 

[Xevion]

jodokast - I have been able to hear the difference on everything I have listened to, and that includes some $3 chineese speakers that make TV speakers sound great, all I can hear out of them is a horrid resonant sound and I can still tell the difference.

Once you can tell the difference it is very easy to do so.

Listen for sounds that are something like birds chirping, that is about my best way to describe the most obvious sounds you get out of crap mp3s.

 

[Audio-Me]

crappy mp3s = bass sounds muddy, vocals sound hollow