MP3 Quality Testing
"Each lucky participant was asked to bring in a CD with a track that he or she has listened to for years and knows so intimately that a single missing hi-hat tap would stand out like a sudden blast from a tuba. We ripped each track using iTunes at three quality levels: 160Kb/s, 320Kb/s, and uncompressed WAV. The compressed files were ripped using variable bit rate (VBR) encoding, meaning that a 160Kb/s VBR track allows the bit rate to rise and fall depending on the complexity of the music while maintaining the selected bit rate as the minimum bit rate for the track."Read article here.
Are you kidding me? This is a surprise? In my opinion, 192k (non variable) should be the standard for online music. While generally I don't think there is audible difference between 160k and WAV quality, I feel that 192k gives enough headroom to make sure there is no audible difference. 128k (non variable) IMO, is sufficient in most cases. You would need a good set of cans and an ear like a hawk to find differences between that and a WAV. 320k, variable no less, is utterly "preposterous!". Don't even get me started on lossy. Some people are just bigots when it comes to digital music. I just want to smack them on the side of the head with a wooden paddle. If you like 320kb/s mp3's, may God can help you...
/end rant
Posted at
8:55 PM
5 Comments:
I think that the terms that I've seen suggest that the difference between 192kbit/s and higher can only be noticed by a fraction of a percent of even diehard music fans. I cannot tell a difference in sound quality between 192k/s and higher bitrates, however I can here a clear difference between even a high bitrate file (even FLAC) compared to listening to the actual CD. I couldn't believe it the first time, because I used to think that 192k/s was pretty much perfect (not lossless, but I assumed that the loss wasn't noticeable).
So how can you rip FLAC at a higher quality than the reference (being the CD? Or am I missing something here?
I think you're missing something ;)
Sorry, I misunderstood. So you're saying that you can tell the difference between FLAC, which is lossless, and the CD? Isn't the idea of lossless that no information is lost, and 100% of the file can be reconstructed?
Personally can't remember ever being able to tell the difference between 192k and CD. As stated, I've never listened to, or downloaded a lossless file, so I can't really comment about that.
I had one album for roughly a year before I tracked down a copy to purchase that was 220k/sec. It was one of those albums that I listened to almost daily and almost exclusively for that duration. After I bought the CD, I was shocked by the seemingly insignificant details that I could hear on the CD that were inaudible on the rip. This made me really wonder about some of the other CDs that I had copies of and had loved. There have been a number of albums that I had a ripped version and a licensed version and I just listened to the ripped version because it's more portable and convenient. After that first experience, I went back and started comparing a lot of the originals with the rips and again, I was shocked. I always assumed that there was no audible difference. It's really in the little details, which I think I've mentioned before are what I really pay attention to when I listen to music. I don't think that I have exceptional listening, I think rather it's my obsessional hearing that makes the difference. I think that most people who listen to music just absorb the "big picture" as opposed to really, really pick it apart to it's most base level.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home