Audio test: 128kbps vs 192kbps vs 320kbps vs cd quality
- Thread starter Sadguru
- Start date
hibernal_dream
A Mind Forever Voyaging
I want results 
Whatever they are, Sadguru will have proved his point - everyone's basically posted different results up to now
Whatever they are, Sadguru will have proved his point - everyone's basically posted different results up to now
1) sample 1 = 192 kbps
2) sample 2 = cd quality
3) sample 3 = 128 kbps
4) sample 4 = 320 kbps
well, that was hard. I hope I got the cd quality one right.
edit: listening on Tech B noise cancelling headphones.
2) sample 2 = cd quality
3) sample 3 = 128 kbps
4) sample 4 = 320 kbps
well, that was hard. I hope I got the cd quality one right.
edit: listening on Tech B noise cancelling headphones.
Wow. Listened through my HT setup, with the amp on direct monitoring mode so as not to color the sound any. My speakers are VERY flat, so I hoped to be able to pick out the subtle nuances. I really couldn't! And I think I have pretty decent ears. I had to stop because it was driving my 2 year old nuts!
I'll respond when she takes a nap!
@Sadguru: what did you use to encode the samples?
A few things I've thought since trying this:
1. Sadguru is pulling our legs, and it's all the same bitrate (but I seriously doubt it)
2. The soundcard is a quality bottleneck (I may try popping these onto my iPod, then hooking it up to my HT system to test this theory)
3. The folks who designed the MP3 compression formats really took psychoacoustics into consideration (like they claimed) and it truly is nearly impossible to differentiate between bitrates.
I'll respond when she takes a nap!
@Sadguru: what did you use to encode the samples?
A few things I've thought since trying this:
1. Sadguru is pulling our legs, and it's all the same bitrate
(but I seriously doubt it)2. The soundcard is a quality bottleneck (I may try popping these onto my iPod, then hooking it up to my HT system to test this theory)
3. The folks who designed the MP3 compression formats really took psychoacoustics into consideration (like they claimed) and it truly is nearly impossible to differentiate between bitrates.
Audiograbber + external encoder Lame + a custom argument.
1. Sadguru is pulling our legs, and it's all the same bitrate
2. The soundcard is a quality bottleneck (I may try popping these onto my iPod, then hooking it up to my HT system to test this theory)
3. The folks who designed the MP3 compression formats really took psychoacoustics into consideration (like they claimed) and it truly is nearly impossible to differentiate between bitrates.
, I can assure you that the bitrates are different.LAME encoding is widely regarded as the best. This is at least a testament to the acclaim it has received.
Out of the laptop with daughter napping:
1) Sample 1 = 192
2) Sample 2 = 128
3) Sample 3 = 320
4) Sample 4 = CD
I'll be interested to hear more of what methods people used to determine bitrates. I'm pretty certain 3 and 4 are higher quality and 1 and 2 are lower, but it's a bit of a toss up as to which of each pair is better, imo. I tried keying in on the cymbals and the snare (the snare seemed to be the way to choose between 1 and 2 for worst quality).
I'm going to try my little iPod experiment now, but it means using a different computer and syncing my iPod (after I just ripped a shitload of old xmas CD's...). It also means contuing to blow off this day.
1) Sample 1 = 192
2) Sample 2 = 128
3) Sample 3 = 320
4) Sample 4 = CD
I'll be interested to hear more of what methods people used to determine bitrates. I'm pretty certain 3 and 4 are higher quality and 1 and 2 are lower, but it's a bit of a toss up as to which of each pair is better, imo. I tried keying in on the cymbals and the snare (the snare seemed to be the way to choose between 1 and 2 for worst quality).
I'm going to try my little iPod experiment now, but it means using a different computer and syncing my iPod (after I just ripped a shitload of old xmas CD's...). It also means contuing to blow off this day.
Manbient
Queer Old Man
I'm about 95% sure the order soundave got was right.
EDIT: took out things that might influence others
thanks for your results soundave,
What's the iPod experiment, if I may ask? Do you mean simply listening to the files on your iPod?
What's the iPod experiment, if I may ask? Do you mean simply listening to the files on your iPod?
Manbient
Queer Old Man
Put files on iPod, connect iPod to amp (in direct mode). Just to see if there's a noticeable difference when the soundcard is in the mix (although it would be soundcard vs. line out of iPod...I wish iPod had digital out!)
And as I thought, with xmas cd additions, I've had to do some creative shit with my library to fit what I want. Xmas music does that. I only leave it on the iPod during the holidays--it takes up way too much room.
Kenneth R.
Cináed
1. 192
2. 128
3. 320
4. cd quality
first several times i downloaded the rar it gave me an error. all good now.
2. 128
3. 320
4. cd quality
first several times i downloaded the rar it gave me an error. all good now.
prowlergrig
AnoThoR Fan
So, imo, it's even harder to tell the difference from the iPod.
The signal is way hotter out of the laptop, and I think it's probably higher quality. If the iPod had digital outs, though... but as I understand it, that would be a huge problem. That's a way for a competing MP3 player to win out... oh wrong thread...
I stick with my answer.
The signal is way hotter out of the laptop, and I think it's probably higher quality. If the iPod had digital outs, though... but as I understand it, that would be a huge problem. That's a way for a competing MP3 player to win out... oh wrong thread...
I stick with my answer.
Similar threads
