|
MP3 Bitrate quality test! (for djdawn and others) (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Qtip_00 |
| woops i didnt read what he wrote and posted my answers here. Anyway I could hear the difference with my soundblaster and klipsch promedia 4.1's |
|
|
| Gluegun |
Between the bad one and the two good ones, or all three? LOL!
Anyways, yea, a good knowledge of what to listen for in mp3's helps. As does bright treble...that'll excentuate the diff's... |
|
|
| Juricimo |
ok, listening right now, and i can tell right from the start of the song there is a difference...., i cant tell...they are different though i promise you on that one....the bass, melody....different pitch or whatever the hell it's called...now gonna pm Paul with my results:D
*edit* i just ripped Three Drives - Greece 2000 (olav b dub) into 96, 128, and 192kbit....all i can tell you that after listening to all three of my tunes, 96kbit was the worst, and i could spot a smaller difference between teh 128 and 192kbit samples....definitely the 96kbit was obviously the worst quality rip...
>JM< |
|
|
| Dmatrox |
| Wilson i sent you a PM a few days ago... well am i right, or not right? |
|
|
| Gluegun |
*coughs some*
Well, what do people think of my links?
And how did the test go?
Did anyone read about that similar test at www.r3mix.net ???
What about what the recording engineer said about trance and compression and such at the other webpage I linked to? |
|
|
| Paul Wilson |
Ok, sorry for not replying. I've just been a little too lazy to reply to all the PM's. In total I have had 19 messages. A lot of people had trouble teling the 192 kps one apart from the 128 kps. 4 people couldn't tell the 96 kps one apart.
Here's the answers:
Sample 1 is 192 kps
Sample 2 is 96 kps
Sample 3 is 128 kps |
|
|
| Gluegun |
| So, what do you think the reason is that they can't tell? Their system? Their ears? The samples themselves? Anyone? |
|
|
| j_spot |
well for me, the 96 stood out. The other 2 were quite even thru my system. I have a have a factory sound card, and Monsoon flat panel speakers.
So, so why couldnt I tell the difference? I dont know. Probly partly my ears, and partly the equipment. But then again, I didnt claim that 96 would do in place of 192 or 160(my prefered level) or 128. soo..while I cant hear the difference, that only means that im making the right choice for me. doesnt it? |
|
|
| Gluegun |
Do you have the monsoon 502's or the 505's? Those area some of the best monsoon systems out there, better than their higher end stuff, like the 700's...
if you have either of those (set up and placed properly), and, say, a Turtle Beach Santa Cruz, you could probably tell teh difference...
However, like I said earlier, these particular samples suck for differentiating between mp3 quality. He should have included an uncompressed .wav of this as well... |
|
|
| Dmatrox |
| woo hoo i got the answer right |
|
|
| Hyperdimension |
As djdawn said a while ago, select a sample by first encoding using "Lame --r3mix", play it in Winamp to see how the bit rate changes, and note the sections of the track that has bit rates > 192. These are the sections that Lame has decided it needs a higher bit rate to retain an acceptable level of quality.
Even if you can't hear the difference at the moment between diffeent bit rate mp3s, you may regret it later when one day you may have better equipment on which you WILL be able to tell the difference. It also depends on your attitudes later. You might become more passionate about music, and want the highest level of quality as you can possibly afford, and wish that you hadn't compressed your favourite tracks to such a low quality mp3. One day we will all be using very high-speed Internet connections and have hard disk drives that are so much larger than today, and having 96kbps mp3s would just be a laugh... I think it's already a laugh. Just get a faster internet connection, larger hard disk drive, and a CD writer. |
|
|
|
|
