Anybody Out There Who Hears a Difference Between 320 kbps MP3 and Red Book CD? What Differences Do You Hear?

[Soniclife]

It's been a while since I did this, but I could pass an abx using the foobar tool between any bitrate mp3 and lossless, this was using speakers. I didn't listen to micro differences but macro things, to me mp3 sounded 'messy', and once I was turned in I could hit X and immediately know the answer. All my testing was done with 1979 by the smashing pumpkins, I chose this because the MP3 sounded wrong just playing it, same as a lot of mp3s did, and thought I'd be clever and prove the difference vanished in a dbt, it didn't.

 

[Veri]

It's been a while since I did this, but I could pass an abx using the foobar tool between any bitrate mp3 and lossless, this was using speakers. I didn't listen to micro differences but macro things, to me mp3 sounded 'messy', and once I was turned in I could hit X and immediately know the answer. All my testing was done with 1979 by the smashing pumpkins, I chose this because the MP3 sounded wrong just playing it, same as a lot of mp3s did, and thought I'd be clever and prove the difference vanished in a dbt, it didn't.

'Any bitrate mp3' is pretty ambiguous. Few people call 320kbps messy/wrong sounding..

 

[Bjorn]

I've been able to hear the difference between MP3 in 320 kbps vs lossless in a blind test. I can hear in the high frequencies. I need spesific music material to pass a blind test and preferably do a little training before the test.

However, I have no problem enjoying music in both 256 and 320 kbps. The difference is small and subtle.

 

[Soniclife]

'Any bitrate mp3' is pretty ambiguous. Few people call 320kbps messy/wrong sounding..

I meant I the highest settings available, with the best encoders, using all the command line switches to max things out, not simply 320. It sounded messy and wrong to me, and I passed a blind test with those impressions.

 

[amirm]

I don't hear much, if any difference between 320 kbps MP3 streams and standard CDs. I consider myself blessed in this respect. I don't think there is an audible difference. And, I don't mind saying so. But, if you hear a difference, what is it?

Do you really want to know? Because once you do and you practice some, it will become more obvious and will bug you forever.

Mind you, the differences at 320 kbps with MP3 are very subtle and very hard to hear with many songs but they can be found.

In similar discussions, I have taken content that was part of the discussion and ran the test and passed it. Here are some examples:
---
foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.3.2
2014/07/19 19:45:33

File A: C:\Users\Amir\Music\Arnys Filter Test\keys jangling 16 44.wav
File B: C:\Users\Amir\Music\Arnys Filter Test\keys jangling 16 44_01.mp3

19:45:33 : Test started.
19:46:21 : 01/01 50.0%
19:46:35 : 02/02 25.0%
19:46:49 : 02/03 50.0%
19:47:03 : 03/04 31.3%
19:47:13 : 04/05 18.8%
19:47:27 : 05/06 10.9%
19:47:38 : 06/07 6.3%
19:47:46 : 07/08 3.5%
19:48:01 : 08/09 2.0%
19:48:19 : 09/10 1.1%
19:48:31 : 10/11 0.6%
19:48:45 : 11/12 0.3%
19:48:58 : 12/13 0.2%
19:49:11 : 13/14 0.1%
19:49:28 : 14/15 0.0%
19:49:52 : 15/16 0.0%
19:49:56 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 15/16 (0.0%)

--

Here is another from AIX records:

foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.3.2
2014/07/31 15:18:41

File A: C:\Users\Amir\Music\AIX AVS Test files\On_The_Street_Where_You_Live_A2.mp3
File B: C:\Users\Amir\Music\AIX AVS Test files\On_The_Street_Where_You_Live_A2.wav

15:18:41 : Test started.
15:19:18 : 01/01 50.0%
15:19:30 : 01/02 75.0%
15:19:44 : 01/03 87.5%
15:20:35 : 02/04 68.8%
15:20:46 : 02/05 81.3%
15:21:39 : 03/06 65.6%
15:21:47 : 04/07 50.0%
15:21:54 : 04/08 63.7%
15:22:06 : 05/09 50.0%
15:22:19 : 06/10 37.7%
15:22:31 : 07/11 27.4%
15:22:44 : 08/12 19.4%
15:22:51 : 09/13 13.3%
15:22:58 : 10/14 9.0%
15:23:06 : 11/15 5.9%
15:23:14 : 12/16 3.8%
15:23:23 : 13/17 2.5%
15:23:33 : 14/18 1.5%
15:23:42 : 15/19 1.0%
15:23:54 : 16/20 0.6%
15:24:06 : 17/21 0.4%
15:24:15 : 18/22 0.2%
15:24:23 : 19/23 0.1%
15:24:34 : 20/24 0.1%
15:24:43 : 21/25 0.0%
15:24:52 : 22/26 0.0%
15:24:57 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 22/26 (0.0%)

If you do want to develop the ability to hear such artifacts, compress some content first to very low bit rate, e.g. 96 or 128 kbps. Pick something with high frequency transients (e.g. acoustic guitar picks) or pure vocals. Compare them to the original a few times. Then gradually dial up the bit rate one step at a time and keep focusing on hearing the same differences.

 

[hvbias]

I have never successfully passed an ABX using foo_ABX with 320 and FLAC regardless of the music. The last time I tried I only had HD580, and my Stax are much more revealing so who knows. I still consider myself a young man (by audiophile standards ) and have very good HF hearing. I think at this level it is more a matter of training and using problematic music, something I just do not care to explore since I keep everything as lossless anyway.

I have been able to do it with the old LAME -V2 preset called -aps back then using a variety of music that wasn't known to be problematic, ie some weird electronic synth music.

 

[amirm]

320kbps? A trained listener? We need a Cochrane's review on this topic re general listening. Science wise, not many think it is more than a narrow-field indulgence.

What?

 

[cjfrbw]

I would say you can't hear the difference unless you are 'trying' to hear it. If you are 'trying' to hear it, you aren't enjoying the music, anyway.

 

[Soniclife]

I would say you can't hear the difference unless you are 'trying' to hear it. If you are 'trying' to hear it, you aren't enjoying the music, anyway.

My experience was the opposite of this, i was bothered by something in music I didn't know as lossless, and it turned out it was the lossy encoding. We don't all process sound the same, there is a ton of stuff I cannot hear correctly that others can.

 

[gorg]

High bit rate MP3 is almost transparent but not 100%
You can provoke this by using the "killer samples" e.g. https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,77128.0.html

I never heard mp3 artifacts @320kbps "slow" encoding (best quality), however, I always preferred Fraunhofer encoder over Lame, due to lowpass filtering at approx. 20kHz at the latter (I was able to hear 19-20kHz several years ago). Now, I'm able to hear 16-17kHz, so the problem gone

But, the one "killer track" of the link You posted just shocked me - it's a Kraftwerk - Die Mensch-Maschine-1978 (2009 remaster), track no.6.
I didn't even think that mp3@320kbps artifacts can be so obvious! I'm able (using headphones) to properly ABX not only lossless vs mp3 but even Lame vs Fraunhofer
Thanks!

 

[Blumlein 88]

I never heard mp3 artifacts @320kbps "slow" encoding (best quality), however, I always preferred Fraunhofer encoder over Lame, due to lowpass filtering at approx. 20kHz at the latter (I was able to hear 19-20kHz several years ago). Now, I'm able to hear 16-17kHz, so the problem gone

But, the one "killer track" of the link You posted just shocked me - it's a Kraftwerk - Die Mensch-Maschine-1978 (2009 remaster), track no.6.
I didn't even think that mp3@320kbps artifacts can be so obvious! I'm able (using headphones) to properly ABX not only lossless vs mp3 but even Lame vs Fraunhofer
Thanks!

It does fit the profile though. Breathy vocals. Otherwise fairly simple music or simple sounds.

As Amir said, you can train yourself to hear this. Start with low bit rates and work your way up.

BTW, AAC is substantially better at lower bitrates than MP3. At higher bit rates there isn't much difference between them. Pretty big difference in constant bit rate and variable rate MP3's too.

 

[restorer-john]

Didn't we have a recent thread on this someplace?

https://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality

remember, this site will randomly re-order the clips if you refresh and try again.

 

[Wombat]

Didn't we have a recent thread on this someplace?

https://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality

remember, this site will randomly re-order the clips if you refresh and try again.

This is a problem with audio forums. Same old over and over, little new and lots of unconfirmable posts looking for agreement, and, some hanging- in for a new gem of knowledge.

It is an eform of 'chewing-the-fat'.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Didn't we have a recent thread on this someplace?

https://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality

remember, this site will randomly re-order the clips if you refresh and try again.

Yes. Two I think. I got them all correctly except for one. Both times. And the one I missed was the same each time. But wombat should not let that bother him.

 

[Ron Texas]

What's the advantage of 320k over Redbook, a 50% decrease in storage? These days that's not worth much.

 

[amirm]

What's the advantage of 320k over Redbook, a 50% decrease in storage? These days that's not worth much.

Uncompressed is 1.4 mbit/sec so you get better than 4:1 compression with 320 kbps. With Flac lossless you usually have around 2:1 compression.

 

[Ron Texas]

Uncompressed is 1.4 mbit/sec so you get better than 4:1 compression with 320 kbps. With Flac lossless you usually have around 2:1 compression.

That's what I was thinking. Thanks for inserting the details. 4:1 mp3, 2:1 flac, net difference 2:1.

 

[andymok]

Another way to train your ear is to flip the phase and listen the compressed and non-compressed tgt. With a spectrogram, you'd know what is actually missing out.

 

[Thomas savage]

This is a problem with audio forums. Same old over and over, little new and lots of unconfirmable posts looking for agreement, and, some hanging- in for a new gem of knowledge.

It is an eform of 'chewing-the-fat'. View attachment 17269

It’s all very well but how can you chew the fat when letters on a screen can’t buy you a beer to wash it down and oil the cogs of thought and friendship.

These virtual interactions are as satisfying as how I imagine synthetic meat to be lol

 

[Wombat]

It’s all very well but how can you chew the fat when letters on a screen can’t buy you a beer to wash it down and oil the cogs of thought and friendship.

These virtual interactions are as satisfying as how I imagine synthetic meat to be lol

It is said there is 'no such thing as a bad beer, just some you don't prefer'. I am still prepared to come across that elusive bad beer but gave up looking for better than audible sound quality in HiFi gear decades ago.