TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- DJ Booth
-- MP3 Bitrate quality test! (for djdawn and others)
Pages (3): [1] 2 3 »

MP3 Bitrate quality test! (for djdawn and others)

Okay, since there was an argument about the difference between 96 kps MP3's and higer I thought I'd start this test! I've made 3 samples an put them into a *.zip file. All are in 192 kps but one is really 96 kps quality, one is 128 kps and the other is 192 kps. I ant you to guess which is which to see if you can tell the quality.

Click here. Please PM me wth your answers, I want to make this test fair!

*EDITED TO WORK*

Link does not work.

Indeed

Fix tha Link!

Nope doesnt work.

Hey, the guy at www.r3mix.net did a test on this....

And, really, there are two things you can do to test mp3 quality.

You can test what type of artifacts the encoding process used ADDS, and trance is REALLY good at letting you test this

and you can find out what they audibly take away from the sound.


The test at the www.r3mix.net forums tested the former, using trance... but, if, say, you were comparing an mp3 to a direct recording of a lot of actual sounds, straight from a mic (eg, one you would use as a sample, or, *gasp* classical or jazz), that would be testing the latter. And, lemme tell you.... going from audiophile-quality LP's of live, unamped, recorded music (which is basically what the millionaire-audiophiles spend all of their money on...getting a system that will reproduce that...) well, let's say that mp3 takes away a lot...

Re: MP3 Bitrate quality test! (for djdawn and others)

quote:

Originally posted by Paul Wilson Okay, since there was an argument about the difference between 96 kps MP3's and higer I thought I'd start this test! I've made 3 samples an put them into a *.zip file. All are in 192 kps but one is really 96 kps quality, one is 128 kps and the other is 192 kps. I ant you to guess which is which to see if you can tell the quality. Click here and rename the file to *.zip. Please PM me wth your answers, I want to make this test fair!

the link is broken

yea I will take your test and I bet
you any money I can tell the difference between them.
only if you are using the same song and do nothing
to change the soung image.

BTW, I was talking about the difference between 320 bit mp3's on the best ways of encoding them compared to other ways of reproducing sound; I was saying that the maximum potential sound quality of MP3 is not equal to CD or XRCD, and isn't even close to SACD or the god of them all, LP.

Not the keyword "Potential" before sound quality.

Looksas if the bastards from prohosting have killed my account! I'l try to find somewherere else. The track I was using was Binary Finary "1998" (Matt Darey Remix).

quote:

Originally posted by Paul Wilson Looksas if the bastards from prohosting have killed my account! I'l try to find somewherere else. The track I was using was Binary Finary "1998" (Matt Darey Remix).

well since we only really need to hear a little bit of the track, why not just crop it and upload to myplay. i know you're on 28.8k but cropping the files to a small 20-30 second clip shouldn't be too bad.

Obviously there are ways to check the quality.
Firstly, i would listen to the actual quality of the overall sound of the samples.

Then listen again closeley to individual ares (Hi hat crispness, bassline slackness/tightness)

Then i would crank each sample up load. You generally find that the higher the recorded bitrate you are on, the more you can amp the sound up before it begins distorting.

Finally, to really back up my analysis, i would run it through 3 seperate spectrum displays, and look for differentiating levels on the wave table.

Either by ear or tech, you wont fool me dude!

Lol!

I'd just take some big, long, piece of music that I have a lot of experience with that has a big frequency range and lots of layers and lots of sampled instruments, install that audiophile-quality sound card lying over there (*points at the Turtle Beach Santa Cruz*), rip the thing as accurately as possible as a *.wav, familiarize myself with it, and change it into mp3 a dozen different ways.

Then do a test actively comparing it to the origional, using my kickass studio monitoring headphones (Beyerdynamic DT831's, $260 USD, baby! Used for $130!) and my headphone amp, plug them into the sound card, and write down my thoughts, listening for this and that.

Then, using a good mp3 player's randomizer function (www.r3mix.net talks about how mp3 players differ, i'd have to pick up a good one), I'd describe how each sample sounds different, and THEN match up my descriptions to the samples.

quote:

Okay, since there was an argument about the difference between 96 kps MP3's and higer I thought I'd start this test! I've made 3 samples an put them into a *.zip file. All are in 192 kps but one is really 96 kps quality, one is 128 kps and the other is 192 kps. I ant you to guess which is which to see if you can tell the quality.

I've just converted one of your tracks from 96 to 192 kps and mate, I am VERY convinced that there is a difference.
Maybe it's the type of encoder I used (Blade) but I can distinctively hear the notable difference, namely the fact that 192 sounds sort of louder and the bass is more clearer.
Technically this won't sound as good as an original wav file being encoded at 192 kbs (after going through all that compression and shit) but it sounds good enough for me.

ok, sorry for not getting my lazy ass in here earlier after you mentioned me in the thread title, but I'm kinda busy

but the test isn't working yet, anyway. So please work on those files (I agree that a 30 or 20 sec clip is enough) and I'll be right here to check it out.

PS: Stanza, I don't get what you're saying in your post. You converted a 96kbps MP3 to 192 and think it sounds better now?

if they aren't to big i could host them for you...upload them to myplay or send them to [email protected]

gluegun: i have a Beyerdynamic DT411, does that count?

DT411?

I've never heard of THAT model... can ya gimme some details of it? maybe post some comparative reviews? Which line is (was?) it in? It is no longer made, correct?

Anyways, I was merely saying that you would probably need an audiophile-quality or engineer-quality setup (sound card and headphones) to pick out the most differences.

And, I was hinting for you to go look at the tests the guy at www.r3mix.net did, because he already DID what you are talking about...

the DT411 is a pretty old version of the DT431...i had the DT311 as well but the qualtity of the DT411 was sooo much better. i thought about buying better ones but i haven't decided yet...

Gonna use it for music listening or recording/mixing? amped or unamped (like, does the headphone jack have some power or is it a balls-less portable?)

i wanna use it for music listening (trance, ambient, classical); i won't use it for live mixing...

my amplifier is a Harman/Kardon AVR 18 RDS

is there a big loss in quality if i'd connect high quality headphones to my pc (soundblaster live)???

Eh....Soundblaster live is hissy as all hell, and it can't drive all that much...

But I happily connect my headphone amp to it, and my big Beyers to it.

Do you want open or closed?

Will you be using it for computer gaming?

*ahem*

And, to get at least HALFWAY back on topic, what media are you going to use for the test? What will be the reference, the control? A *.wav of something? Well?

quote:

Originally posted by Gluegun Do you want open or closed? Will you be using it for computer gaming?

i prefer closed...

and i won't use it for computer gaming...what's the difference?

I've got some space now. I'm uploadinga few tunes just now so as soon as I've finished that I'll post the samples.

The link is working now. Go back to the first post and please read over the rules before downloading!

For easy to drive closed headphones that are REALLY nice, check out the Beyerdynamic DT250-80, or, ideally, the Etymotic ER4P.

By the way, with amplifier, I was talking about HEADPHONE amplifier, or any info on the amplification properties of whatever you will be plugging these headphones into... you *don't* plug headphones into a speaker amplifier, unless you are plugging the AKG K1000's into a 6 through 10 watt speaker amp.

ok thanks a lot ...i'm gonna check them out

btw these headphones are pretty cheap here in germany...DT250-80 for $130

just one thing...what's the difference between DT250-80 and the DT831 cause they both cost the same!?!

I have computer speakers with a headphone output, I think they amplify the sound a bit..

but damn, they sound good!

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.