What mp3 are You listening now?
- Thread starter pascal
- Start date
MuFu said:
MP3 has a few weaknesses that can't be remedied bei encoding at a higher bitrate... some percussion, some reverb stuff etc. There are pathological cases but they are few and far between - and even then, while it might sound a tine bit different in some areas, it's hard to tell of it sounds "worse" when put to a blind test. Personally, I don't belive anyone who claims that he can clearly hear a difference between 192kb/s+ MP3s and CDs except for those very, very few pathological cases.
Ok, I have a few test files online.
Slayer - Raining Blood - first 12 seconds. Ripped with EAC. One file is straight .wav, one is a HQ VBR encoded MP3 and the other one is a 320kb/s encoded CBR MP3. Both MP3s have been encoded with join stereo. The MP3s have been reconverted to wav.
Now, I would like to know from _xxx_ or someone else who thinks that he can clearly discern MP3s from the original or who thinks that MP3s sound like shit:
1. which of the 3 files is the source .wav
2. if you can't tell then I'd like to know which one sounds best to you
Edit... free webspace thing doesn't work... have to look for another solution.
Slayer - Raining Blood - first 12 seconds. Ripped with EAC. One file is straight .wav, one is a HQ VBR encoded MP3 and the other one is a 320kb/s encoded CBR MP3. Both MP3s have been encoded with join stereo. The MP3s have been reconverted to wav.
Now, I would like to know from _xxx_ or someone else who thinks that he can clearly discern MP3s from the original or who thinks that MP3s sound like shit:
1. which of the 3 files is the source .wav
2. if you can't tell then I'd like to know which one sounds best to you
Edit... free webspace thing doesn't work... have to look for another solution.
KeillRandor
Newcomer
L233 said:
For starters - it's not just what you play - it's what you play it on... On this computer, with o/b sound and basic computer speakers, I can still hear a difference between 192kbs MP3's and 16/44.1 WAV's. It's not that great, but it's noticable to me. On my DAW, however, with the Edirol DA2496 - the differences become more noticable - (which is it's job!). And if I listen to it directly on my Beyerdynamic headphones, I can tell the difference between 24-bit and 16-bit wav's, and also 16-bit wav's and any mp3... (Even higher bit-rates still sound compressed). But like I said - thats their job....
My computer is hooked to my stereo which isn't too shabby. I also have Sennheiser HD600 headphones. And I think you're all on crack 
I don't doubt that MP3s might sound a tiny bit off if you really concentrate on one particular aspect of the sound, like percussion - but I doubt you can identify the original when put to a blind test.
Anyway... we'll see as soon as I find some webspace that doesn't nazi out files bigger than a few hundred KBs.
Edit:
Ok, I give up. I can't find any suitable free webspace. Could anyone host a total of 6.5mb?
I don't doubt that MP3s might sound a tiny bit off if you really concentrate on one particular aspect of the sound, like percussion - but I doubt you can identify the original when put to a blind test.
Anyway... we'll see as soon as I find some webspace that doesn't nazi out files bigger than a few hundred KBs.
Edit:
Ok, I give up. I can't find any suitable free webspace. Could anyone host a total of 6.5mb?
Woot! Found webspace. Hope it lasts.
http://btest.8bit.co.uk/btest.rar
The .rar file contains three .wav files. One is the source .wav, the other two are mp3s converted back to .wav. One MP3 was encoded at 320kb/s CBR, the other one HQ VBR. Both were encoded in joint stereo with LAME.
I'd like to know if you can tell which of the 3 files is the source .wav. If you can't tell then I'd like to know which one you think sounds best.
Please don't cheat by using some frequency analyer or something like that.
http://btest.8bit.co.uk/btest.rar
The .rar file contains three .wav files. One is the source .wav, the other two are mp3s converted back to .wav. One MP3 was encoded at 320kb/s CBR, the other one HQ VBR. Both were encoded in joint stereo with LAME.
I'd like to know if you can tell which of the 3 files is the source .wav. If you can't tell then I'd like to know which one you think sounds best.
Please don't cheat by using some frequency analyer or something like that.
KeillRandor
Newcomer
Righ then. First off - I couldn't listen to these files for long - I have a splitting headache (not feeling well atm) - and this clip is not that friendly in that respect. I just gave them a couple of goes each, but that was enough to hear some slight differences at the top end, which you'd expect. However I wouldn't like to say which one is the original, only that they're all (very slightly) different. The biggest difference was between the the first two and the third. The third one seemed to be thinner at the top end than the other two. And the cymbals, (again at the top end) between the other two had slight differences - but not enough for me to know which one is the original. 12s twice through isn't really enough for me to tell that much more - but I couldn't listen to them any longer than that - sry - a longer sample / more tries would obviously be better and more revealing...;-)
KeillRandor
Newcomer
L233 said:
Guess I got there fast enough...
KeillRandor said:
The cymbals are really a worst case scenario because it is the kind of stuff where mp3 is most likely to produce artifacts. That's why I picked it in the first place.
Without giving away which one is which... you're right, they sound very, very slightly different but
1. it's impossible to say which ones is "wrong" without the source as reference and even then it would be hard
2. it's impossible to really claim that one sounds "better"
3. the difference is so marginal that you have to listen really closely and concentrate on the critical parts (cymbals) to notice any difference. That's not how people usually listen to music, even when listening "actively".
MP3 is, after all, not a lossless compression and has some very well documented weaknesses. Still, I find MP3 extremely adequate at 192kbps (higher in some few cases, especially live recordings) for my listening habbits and the type of music I prefer - mainly rock and metal stuff.
I think statements like "I can tell the difference between 320k and a CD very clearly" are over the top.
German computer magazine c't conducted an extensive blind test some time ago... they had a test audience comprised of musicians and people who claimed they could clearly hear a difference. They had a selection of music from different genres, ranging from Jazz to Rock and classical stuff encoded with a whole slew of different codecs (mp3, ogg, acc etc.). The result was telling. The test audience was wrong identifying the source at least as many times as they were right. When asked for preference, they often picked a compressed one as sounding better. And in one test they would seemlessly switch from compressed to uncompressed in the middle of the song and the test audience almost always failed to identify when the switch occured.
Yes, there might be slight differences if you listen very closely and use the original as reference. Does it matter when you just wanna listen to the music? I don't think so. There is a point when the discussion becomes purely academic.
KeillRandor
Newcomer
L233 said:
Well, with music being such a subjective matter in the first place - your always bound to get differing opinions on that anyway...:-/
L233 said:
Actually - to me, the difference between the first two and the third was very noticable - I picked it up straight away. But then, my ears are very good - (and I always have some amount of concentration going when listening to music). (Which is why I'm such a light sleeper, and find it hard to do anything requiring a large amount of concentration while listening to music). The biggest question unanswered for me, of course, is, since I noticed such a difference between them, which one is the third one? lol. (And remember - this is only with two quick passes, as it were...).
L233 said:
Well - that all depends on which one the third one is, dosen't it???? ;-)
L233 said:
Any sonar operators in the group??? ;-) (If I didn't suffer from Arthritis, and had a time machine, thats the job I would have aimed for, lol).
L233 said:
Amen to that...
L233 said:
ahh , well being at work and wanting legit software only,, and since i wanted stuff as portable as poss... windows-media-player . and 192 mp3 . . .
and of course that means replayed thru the pc's hardware as well...
though into some hd580's . . so not *all* bad
.quick check.. blitzkrieg bop , yeah the mp3 is listenable, and i suppose since it's hardly hifi i'd have difficulty telling one from the other . however when playing both,, i *do* prefer the cd version . .
-dave-
whats scary is that i *used* to have good hearing , but after a number of mary-chain gigs and years of headphones . . well it aint like it used to be
The original doesn't necesarily sound better, it's just that you know the original and you've been listening to it for years. So when you hear a 320k mp3, you can still hear that something's wrong, even without really thinking about it. In case of Slayer, it would definitely be drums - snare and cymbals, since his bass drum is rather in the background, sound-wise. In case of Death (which was my "test object"), there was a lot of stuff missing in sound of cymbals, bass drum, voice, even acoustic guitar. It sounded compressed, to put it simple.
If you don't know the music, you'll hardly be able to say which is which, but if it's something where you know and love every single tone, you'll hear it right away. Don't even have to have musician's ear.
If you don't know the music, you'll hardly be able to say which is which, but if it's something where you know and love every single tone, you'll hear it right away. Don't even have to have musician's ear.
