3 ms·

Interesting that you were able to distinguish the 320 MP3s from the uncompressed files. Couldn't make out any differences at all on decent headphones. Even the

Interesting that you were able to distinguish the 320 MP3s from the uncompressed files. Couldn't make out any differences at all on decent headphones. Even the 128s were pretty good esp. for the more modern mainstream music where the quality is questionable from the beginning :)

noobie 11y ago
I personally think the samples are not ill-suited for the purpose of distinction between the various bitrates.
72deluxe 11y ago
The 128kbps MP3s are easy to distinguish - they sound like audio in a washing machine, going round and round. Listen to cymbals that instead of going CRASH go CBBRASPHHHHHH with the ending being the giveaway. Snares are also affected as they won't have such high frequency peaks so lose their SNAP sound. Bass drums are also easy to pick out - if there isn't much bottom end then you know it has been compressed. The a cappella version sounds like she's got a throaty cold on the MP3s. The SSSSSes sound different on MP3s too - it ssssoundsss like they've got a lissssppppp with MP3s. You may find it easier to listen quietly because then your ears only pick up the highlights instead of getting fatigued with too much volume (where they will shut down after a while).
lgunsch 11y ago
Haha, yeah. Multi-band compressed till the waveform is a bar-code.
- lgunsch 11y ago
  Why was I downvoted? It's very much true.
  - 72deluxe 11y ago
    It is indeed very true, with compressed samples put through more compression and then limited. Look at the waveforms of some tracks and they'll be like square waves. Rush Vapor Trails is the worst offender, perhaps?