3 ms·

I have listened to a lot of MP3 at different bit rates and with modern encoders and variable bit rates I can't tell the difference between anything above 160 Kb

I have listened to a lot of MP3 at different bit rates and with modern encoders and variable bit rates I can't tell the difference between anything above 160 Kbps - most of the time it is hard to tell the difference between 128kbp and anything higher. Really at 320kps you are entering the realm of fantasy if you think you can hear any difference.

4ad 11y ago
This is not true. It is trivial for almost anyone to distinguish 320kbps mp3 from uncompressed audio, with built-in DACs and $5 headphones, with as little as 5 minutes of training.
- semi-extrinsic 11y ago
  [citation needed]
- danieltillett 11y ago
  How can it not be true as I am describing my experience. Are you really telling me that I actually can tell when I say I can't?
  - Freaky 11y ago
    You're also describing everyone else's experience: > Really at 320kps you are entering the realm of fantasy if you think you can hear any difference. It depends on the encoder, the track, your equipment, and how good you are at picking out artifacts. Some people do surprisingly well in double-blind tests, though I doubt anyone can do it all the time on every sample.
    - danieltillett 11y ago
      There is no scientific evidence that anyone can do it at all above 192 kbps.
      - Freaky 11y ago
        This is why ABX testing is so big in lossy audio circles. People can and do demonstrate their ability to distinguish between lossy and lossless encodings with certain samples in double-blind tests, at all sorts of bitrates. I've done it myself occasionally. That people have been doing this for many years is one of the big reasons modern encoders are so good - they've needed tonnes of careful tuning to get to this point.
- mafro 11y ago
  Like the parent comment, more bold statements about perceivable sound quality, with no evidence.
krisdol 11y ago
I absolutely heard a difference between 320 and everything below. You can tell me I didn't, but I did. There is a world of difference between 160Kbps and 256, and 128 is a lot worse. If you can't hear it, I understand, but the blame isn't the algorithm -- it is your equipment, your song selection, or your ears.

4ad 11y ago

This is not true. It is trivial for almost anyone to distinguish 320kbps mp3 from uncompressed audio, with built-in DACs and $5 headphones, with as little as 5 minutes of training.

semi-extrinsic 11y ago
[citation needed]
danieltillett 11y ago
How can it not be true as I am describing my experience. Are you really telling me that I actually can tell when I say I can't?
- Freaky 11y ago
  You're also describing everyone else's experience: > Really at 320kps you are entering the realm of fantasy if you think you can hear any difference. It depends on the encoder, the track, your equipment, and how good you are at picking out artifacts. Some people do surprisingly well in double-blind tests, though I doubt anyone can do it all the time on every sample.
  - danieltillett 11y ago
    There is no scientific evidence that anyone can do it at all above 192 kbps.
    - Freaky 11y ago
      This is why ABX testing is so big in lossy audio circles. People can and do demonstrate their ability to distinguish between lossy and lossless encodings with certain samples in double-blind tests, at all sorts of bitrates. I've done it myself occasionally. That people have been doing this for many years is one of the big reasons modern encoders are so good - they've needed tonnes of careful tuning to get to this point.
mafro 11y ago
Like the parent comment, more bold statements about perceivable sound quality, with no evidence.

krisdol 11y ago

I absolutely heard a difference between 320 and everything below. You can tell me I didn't, but I did. There is a world of difference between 160Kbps and 256, and 128 is a lot worse. If you can't hear it, I understand, but the blame isn't the algorithm -- it is your equipment, your song selection, or your ears.