4 ms·

The author claimed that codec choice matters little >128k, not that 128k is of equal SQ to 256k. BTW, if you can easily discern 256k from 320k, I'd venture to

The author claimed that codec choice matters little >128k, not that 128k is of equal SQ to 256k. BTW, if you can easily discern 256k from 320k, I'd venture to guess that you are a 1% "golden ear" listener. OTOH, even my 60yo ears can tell 128k from 256k.

lloeki 9y ago
I understood that but didn't made it point clear: my point is that it matters in a bit more nuanced way. I'll use [0] as some sort of visual support to help transcribe how I perceive it: - 128k MP3 is like watching a Q=10 JPEG (artefacts and blockiness all over the place) while 128k AAC is much more like Q=50 (artefacting is much much more local, like the little grass patch on the left side of the stone) - 256k MP3 is generally great but still has artefacts happen occasionally in some local, specific areas, similar to Q=50 (but not in the same way as 128k AAC), and definitely not on all songs, while 256k AAC is very close to perfect in any situation. - 320k MP3 is very close to perfect save from very specific (and rare!) pathological corner cases that throws encoders off (like you have to have some specific bass line and some footwork on the bass drum and some very specific cymbal then the cymbal gets subtly crashy and noisy while the bass work gets subtly glitchy and muddled), which doesn't happen with AAC. Yes I've double blind-tested this with a friend who did not believe me, and used multiple MP3 encoders for that. So to sum things up: MP3 AAC 128k annoying enjoyable 256k excellent awesome 320k superb Those being ordered this way: annoying < enjoyable < excellent < superb < awesome It's not much that I have some "golden ear" that I've been trained into looking for some patterns when I was studying DSP and now that I know what to look for they just annoyingly pop out. It's a bit like watching logs fly by just fast enough that you can't read them yet spot some oddity and just go "wait, there was something right there", and should you scroll back, sure enough, here's the deal standing out like a sore thumb. Taking a bet that audio equipment gets better and cheaper with time I'd rather have a reasonable quality as a source, especially in light to the storage space and general bandwidth we have at our disposal. Then again in an increasingly streaming world we don't get much in the way of a choice whether it's about formats themselves or encoders. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG#Sample_photographs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG#Sample_photographs
- em500 9y ago
  In a 2014 listening test, 136kbps MP3 was generally rated as somewhere between "Perceptible, but not annoying" and "Imperceptible": http://listening-test.coresv.net/results.htm http://listening-test.coresv.net/results.htm
martinald 9y ago
It really does depend on the music you're listening to IME. Some stuff sounds ok on 128k, but a lot of the electronic music I listen to is horrendous on 128k. Which is a real shame as a lot of sets I have I can only find in 128k mp3.
- rplst8 9y ago
  Spot on. This is something that is rarely mentioned, but having an extremely varied taste in music - I've noticed this exact thing.

lloeki 9y ago

I understood that but didn't made it point clear: my point is that it matters in a bit more nuanced way. I'll use [0] as some sort of visual support to help transcribe how I perceive it: - 128k MP3 is like watching a Q=10 JPEG (artefacts and blockiness all over the place) while 128k AAC is much more like Q=50 (artefacting is much much more local, like the little grass patch on the left side of the stone) - 256k MP3 is generally great but still has artefacts happen occasionally in some local, specific areas, similar to Q=50 (but not in the same way as 128k AAC), and definitely not on all songs, while 256k AAC is very close to perfect in any situation. - 320k MP3 is very close to perfect save from very specific (and rare!) pathological corner cases that throws encoders off (like you have to have some specific bass line and some footwork on the bass drum and some very specific cymbal then the cymbal gets subtly crashy and noisy while the bass work gets subtly glitchy and muddled), which doesn't happen with AAC. Yes I've double blind-tested this with a friend who did not believe me, and used multiple MP3 encoders for that. So to sum things up: MP3 AAC 128k annoying enjoyable 256k excellent awesome 320k superb Those being ordered this way: annoying < enjoyable < excellent < superb < awesome It's not much that I have some "golden ear" that I've been trained into looking for some patterns when I was studying DSP and now that I know what to look for they just annoyingly pop out. It's a bit like watching logs fly by just fast enough that you can't read them yet spot some oddity and just go "wait, there was something right there", and should you scroll back, sure enough, here's the deal standing out like a sore thumb. Taking a bet that audio equipment gets better and cheaper with time I'd rather have a reasonable quality as a source, especially in light to the storage space and general bandwidth we have at our disposal. Then again in an increasingly streaming world we don't get much in the way of a choice whether it's about formats themselves or encoders. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG#Sample_photographs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG#Sample_photographs

em500 9y ago
In a 2014 listening test, 136kbps MP3 was generally rated as somewhere between "Perceptible, but not annoying" and "Imperceptible": http://listening-test.coresv.net/results.htm http://listening-test.coresv.net/results.htm

martinald 9y ago

It really does depend on the music you're listening to IME. Some stuff sounds ok on 128k, but a lot of the electronic music I listen to is horrendous on 128k. Which is a real shame as a lot of sets I have I can only find in 128k mp3.

rplst8 9y ago
Spot on. This is something that is rarely mentioned, but having an extremely varied taste in music - I've noticed this exact thing.