Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Go Back   Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community > Main Forums > The Off Topic Forum > Tech Talk
Register Forum Rules FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-24-2008, 11:42 PM   #1
Bobblehead
Franchise Player
 
Bobblehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: in your blind spot.
Exp:
Default MP3s - 320 kbps vs 128 kbps - Can you tell the difference?

http://mp3ornot.com/

I got it right, but I'm not sure if that is good ears or good luck. I'd like to see a test like this with a bunch of samples.
__________________
"The problem with any ideology is that it gives the answer before you look at the evidence."
—Bill Clinton
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance--it is the illusion of knowledge."
—Daniel J. Boorstin, historian, former Librarian of Congress
"But the Senator, while insisting he was not intoxicated, could not explain his nudity"
—WKRP in Cincinatti

Last edited by Bobblehead; 03-25-2008 at 01:24 PM.
Bobblehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2008, 11:46 PM   #2
photon
The new goggles also do nothing.
 
photon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

I got it right away, but I've listened to Pavarotti before. I've tried this with other music and I find stuff with acoustic guitar, higher frequency instruments, instrumentals, vocal stuff, basically stuff with tons of detail it's easier to tell, which I guess makes sense.

Bump that up to 192kbps, and it's a lot harder, and I think I tried some once with a high VBR and I don't think I was any better than chance.
__________________
Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
photon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2008, 11:47 PM   #3
AC
Resident Videologist
 
AC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

I got it right, I could hear the static in the 128 version, though the difference wasn't as noticeable as I would have thought.

I think anything above 192 is probably indistinguishable, but I still like to acquire the best quality MP3s that I can.
AC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2008, 11:51 PM   #4
BlackArcher101
Such a pretty girl!
 
BlackArcher101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Hard to notice with that example, but in my library with rock songs the difference is night and day. Myself, I go for 192.
__________________
BlackArcher101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2008, 12:28 AM   #5
HotHotHeat
Franchise Player
 
HotHotHeat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Victoria, BC
Exp:
Default

The fullness of the instrumental music is how I was able to tell. His voice a bit, but mostly the band.
HotHotHeat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2008, 02:06 AM   #6
corporatejay
Franchise Player
 
corporatejay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Exp:
Default

i'm on a laptop so the sound sucks no matter what.....I got it wrong.
__________________
corporatejay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2008, 02:21 AM   #7
Dion
Not a casual user
 
Dion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: A simple man leading a complicated life....
Exp:
Default

I got it right. It was the background instrumentals that did it for me. Been told i have a good ear for music.
__________________
Dion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2008, 09:59 AM   #8
Ro
#1 Goaltender
 
Ro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Kelowna
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by corporatejay View Post
i'm on a laptop so the sound sucks no matter what.....I got it wrong.
Yeah, I didn't listen to the samples, but in my experience, it's all about the speakers/headphones.

I was amazed at how crappy some of the music on my iPod that had low bitrates sounded after I got a good pair of headphones. You could hear every hiss, every inconsistency. They sounded 2D, flat, boring. Whereas the music encoded @256 or 320 kbps sounded orchestral, and 3D.

But if I was to play a file from each category on a pair of cheap computer speakers, it's significantly harder to tell the two apart.
Ro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2008, 10:07 AM   #9
Bobblehead
Franchise Player
 
Bobblehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: in your blind spot.
Exp:
Default

I found this article interesting.

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/do_...off?page=0%2C3
__________________
"The problem with any ideology is that it gives the answer before you look at the evidence."
—Bill Clinton
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance--it is the illusion of knowledge."
—Daniel J. Boorstin, historian, former Librarian of Congress
"But the Senator, while insisting he was not intoxicated, could not explain his nudity"
—WKRP in Cincinatti
Bobblehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2008, 10:07 AM   #10
ken0042
Playboy Mansion Poolboy
 
ken0042's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Close enough to make a beer run during a TV timeout
Exp:
Default

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and the same thing goes with listening to music. Your sound quality will only be as good as the weakest point along the line chain of items used to generate that sound. Back when I used to sell speakers I had other sales guys use 128 kbps MP3s to demo higher end speakers (over $1000/pair) and they would sound muddy. I would used store bought CDs and be able to bring out the quality of the sound.

I'll have to give these samples a listen when I get home, but in the past I have been able to easily notice the difference between 128 and 320 kbps MP3s. And I agree that as you go higher it is harder to notice a difference. For me it has never been about how many songs I can jam onto a device; rather the quality of the music.
ken0042 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2008, 11:45 AM   #11
Hakan
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: do not want
Exp:
Default

It's really easy to tell the difference between 128 and 192 imo.

You just need a halfway decent sound system and you can hear the high-ends clip into static. 192 to CD is hard to differentiate though. The only way you can really tell is witha really good system or using optical connectors.
Hakan is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:40 AM.

Calgary Flames
2024-25




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2021 | See Our Privacy Policy