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*

Last edited by on Nov-12-2001 at 14:24

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...

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.

___________________
Signature is over the 500X150 limit, please resize.

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.

Last edited by Gluegun on Nov-09-2001 at 04:40

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.

___________________

FREEWAY MUSIC PODCAST
Trance | Electro | Hard Dance | Breaks | Techno
www.facebook.com/freewayentertainment | www.twitter.com/freewaymusic

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.