TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- DJ Booth
-- Can You Hear The Difference Between 128 vs 320?
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Can You Hear The Difference Between 128 vs 320?

http://mp3ornot.com

oh not another one of these....theres a huge difference, but only on a system that's remotely decent. Your Dell computer speakers and your Koss headphones won't be able to show it however.

Yes I can.

Yep.

To me they sound a bit crisper and louder with out distortion....


they dont sound that much different apart though.

yes, on the macbook pro speakers


coulda been a lucky guess though

Has to be said that either the 320 one was encoded really badly, or the 120 one was done really well OR if both were encoded with the same codec then the codec was really good.

I listened with my 7506s. I guessed right.

Normally I can tell a 128 apart from a 320 no problems...... this was definately designed to challenge the listener.

"but b has the best sound quality"

Would these ****s fuck off seriously. When your looking at whether to encode the exact same file into 320 or 128kbps sound quality of the original recording is not going to be different. This is a really stupid example that is not real world at all even though real world is pretty damn easy to achieve.

It is very easy for me to tell the difference. Whether it be on shitty speakers, shitty car speakers, my 50dollar seinheiser headphones (not entirely shit but not great either), my bose companion 3 computer speakers (although admitably lower bitrate stuff does actually sound a ton better on here then in the lounge... low bitrate stuff is unbearable in there) or my lounge speakers which are korg concept 8s.

mp3 320 and lossless I can tell too, but thats a tad harder (still worth it concidering how cheap storage is however).

I do believe mr jolivebingles did a test a while ago where everyone got most of the stuff correct (fair enough if its not your prefered genre though).

I dont get anything unless its 320 these days. The difference; especially on good speakers and at high volumes, is gigantic!

320 ftw!!!

Who still compresses in or sells 128kps mp3s these days?

ewwww. 128s sound terrible. that 'scritchy scratchy' sound of a shitty mp3 does my head in.

Yes, that was blatantly obvious.

I wouldn't trust an online test anyway.


Take a 320 of a tune you have, make it a 128 via soundforge and try that. Pretty simple.

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis I wouldn't trust an online test anyway. Take a 320 of a tune you have, make it a 128 via soundforge and try that. Pretty simple.

Here in lies the problem with that. If you make a 128 (or any bit-rate) MP3 from an MP3, it will be poorer quality than the target bit-rate you're going for.

To have a true comparison you'd need to make a 128 & 320 converted from a lossless file source (preferably a .wav).

The thing about mp3 is that you lose frequencies that you don't hear on typical sound systems.

Besides, why would you use mp3 if you can use flac or even ogg

why use flac or ogg or whatever when mp3 320kbps is supported everywhere? dont go below 320 it sounds crap.

quote:

Originally posted by palm why use flac or ogg or whatever when mp3 320kbps is supported everywhere? dont go below 320 it sounds crap.

Cause flac sounds better.

old.

quote:

Originally posted by cmay119 Here in lies the problem with that. If you make a 128 (or any bit-rate) MP3 from an MP3, it will be poorer quality than the target bit-rate you're going for. To have a true comparison you'd need to make a 128 & 320 converted from a lossless file source (preferably a .wav).

Yes, never convert between lossy formats

I couldn't tell the difference.

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis Cause flac sounds better.

but were not listening to classic or jazz are we? 320 is good enough

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis Cause flac sounds better.

yeah but it won't work on most mp3 players etc. and has shit support in general.

quote:

Originally posted by palm but were not listening to classic or jazz are we? 320 is good enough

Most noticeable artifacts of mp3 that you can still hear in 320 a bit:

Strings plain suck at low bitrate, so do pads or similar.
Pitch wobble/growler bass sucks, for a similar reason to strings or pads (Dnb, Trance, Liquid, many more)
Reverb sucks (trance)
Older style mastered stuff sucks, and even then you still get extra (anything but house really) clarity with higher bitrate (anything old, goa trance in particular)
Anything where base is somewhat important. That rules out anything with either synthed (with deep bass) or real kicks as well as anything with important baselines (Dnb, Breaks, trance, techno, big beat, uk garage, dubstep, goa... and some psy etc)

That pretty much just leaves house(even then your still going to get some extra benefit from higher bitrate). 320 is not good enough. When I've just listened to an album on cd and I hear it in 320 then I can immedietly see a part of the overall feel is gone and when I got an album which I'd previously only heard in 128kbps it was bliss.

I took this "test" before and could tell the difference. It doesn't really prove anything though.

quote:

Originally posted by Darkarbiter Most noticeable artifacts of mp3 that you can still hear in 320 a bit: Strings plain suck at low bitrate, so do pads or similar. Pitch wobble/growler bass sucks, for a similar reason to strings or pads (Dnb, Trance, Liquid, many more) Reverb sucks (trance) Older style mastered stuff sucks, and even then you still get extra (anything but house really) clarity with higher bitrate (anything old, goa trance in particular) Anything where base is somewhat important. That rules out anything with either synthed (with deep bass) or real kicks as well as anything with important baselines (Dnb, Breaks, trance, techno, big beat, uk garage, dubstep, goa... and some psy etc) That pretty much just leaves house(even then your still going to get some extra benefit from higher bitrate). 320 is not good enough. When I've just listened to an album on cd and I hear it in 320 then I can immedietly see a part of the overall feel is gone and when I got an album which I'd previously only heard in 128kbps it was bliss.

ofcourse 128 is crap, i never said anything else. and yes u can hear the difference pretty clearly between 320 and wav when listening peacefully in your home, well knows environment. and yes base and dynamics kinda sounds weaker but in most edm this is compressed to hell anyway so its not realy a loss. todays edm in general sounds crap whether its wav or mp3 so to waste space on your HD/iPod whatever on higher than 320 is complete superstition. as for older production, 90s edm ur completely right, it sounds much better on wav.

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