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

[paudio]

I haven't been able to tell a difference between 320kbit MP3 and anything else from the same source. Mostly closed back headphone listening or on studio monitors. I've noticed that a lot of modern music is mastered loud and has a decent amount of distortion inherently.

I have about 80GB of purchased and ripped music in mostly 320 CBR MP3 and 256 AAC. Lots of times these days there is no CD available to rip and iTunes is the only digital shop that will sell to me in Canada.

I can't tell in a blind test at all. Once in a while I feel annoyed and worried so I rip something in multiple formats and again can't tell a difference.

Back in the day though there was some really badly encoded MP3s.

 

[Sal1950]

I can't tell in a blind test at all. Once in a while I feel annoyed and worried so I rip something in multiple formats and again can't tell a difference.

It is really difficult and you do have to know exactly what to listen for.
The biggest issue is, once you know, you know, and you can't go back to un-hearing it.
If you fully enjoy your source of music, that's all that counts.

 

[Deleted member 48726]

It is really difficult and you do have to know exactly what to listen for.
The biggest issue is, once you know, you know, and you can't go back to un-hearing it.
If you fully enjoy your source of music, that's all that counts.

Isn't it the same clues as if you encode something to 96 kbit mp3? -Like distorted sibilants and such?

 

[Zensō]

I haven't been able to tell a difference between 320kbit MP3 and anything else from the same source. Mostly closed back headphone listening or on studio monitors. I've noticed that a lot of modern music is mastered loud and has a decent amount of distortion inherently.

I have about 80GB of purchased and ripped music in mostly 320 CBR MP3 and 256 AAC. Lots of times these days there is no CD available to rip and iTunes is the only digital shop that will sell to me in Canada.

I can't tell in a blind test at all. Once in a while I feel annoyed and worried so I rip something in multiple formats and again can't tell a difference.

Back in the day though there was some really badly encoded MP3s.

256 AAC is so good I quit worrying about lossy vs lossless a long time ago. I think much of the hand wringing over lossy formats is due to ultra low bit rates and the memory of badly encoded MP3’s as you stated. Of course, it’s possible to pick out minute differences if using specialized techniques, but who does this in real life?

An interesting side note is that in Archimago’s lossy blind test, a majority of participants on high end gear preferred the lossy samples over the lossless. Go figure.

 

[Bow_Wazoo]

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?

Google the "Viennese blind test".
There was a big test in this regard over 20 years ago. for people with normal functioning hearing, it is almost impossible to hear a difference

 

[Sal1950]

Isn't it the same clues as if you encode something to 96 kbit mp3? -Like distorted sibilants and such?

I couldn't say for sure, never messed around with doing things like that.

 

[Sal1950]

256 AAC is so good I quit worrying about lossy vs lossless a long time ago. I think much of the hand wringing over lossy formats is due to ultra low bit rates and the memory of badly encoded MP3’s as you stated. Of course, it’s possible to pick out minute differences if using specialized techniques, but who does this in real life?

Maybe true but with the low cost of storage and bandwidth today, except in outlier cases, why bother with anything less than lossless flac?

 

[danadam]

I think much of the hand wringing over lossy formats is due to ultra low bit rates and the memory of badly encoded MP3’s as you stated.

Just came across this recently: Are old MP3s worse than new ones?

With a 128 kBit/s bit rate, however, I have to go back to 1997 to find an encoder that generates files that clearly sound worse. In the tested encoders from 1999 and 2002, the differences are already so minimal I can’t clearly tell them apart in a blind test.

 

[Zensō]

Maybe true but with the low cost of storage and bandwidth today, except in outlier cases, why bother with anything less than lossless flac?

For sure, I don’t disagree. On the other hand, when streaming Apple Music from various devices to a variety of different systems around the house, you never quite know what you’re getting… lol. In my case, I don’t sweat whether it’s 256 AAC or lossless ALAC, it simply has no bearing on my level of music enjoyment.

 

[Julf]

Maybe true but with the low cost of storage and bandwidth today, except in outlier cases, why bother with anything less than lossless flac?

I guess mobile/car qualify as "outlier cases".

 

[Digital_Thor]

Anyone who wants to try a blind ABX between various bit rate MP3 and lossless, can do so here. I tried the 128kb/s test and was just guessing.

ABX Lossless vs Lame MP3 test list

A set of browser-based ABX tests to compare Lame MP3 encoded and lossless music samples

abx.digitalfeed.net

This test leads me to believe a few things.
1. Yes, it can actually be hard to tell the difference, even when your system is actually very good.
2. In this test, you compare directly with the original. But when just causally listening to music, I sometimes tend to choose the one that sounds the least annoying, even though that might not be the original one, since the original might reveal something not to my ear's liking, even though "correct". So the setup for a given test, is really important.
3. Being sure that the encoding, recording, mixing, sampling and playback is done correctly, is properly more important than bit rate or compression, since I have heard both good 128kbit mp3 and lousy FLAC's.
4. Some music seem to have intentional compression, distortion and other deviations - which make them difficult to audition all together.

 

[paudio]

Maybe true but with the low cost of storage and bandwidth today, except in outlier cases, why bother with anything less than lossless flac?

Cheap but not practical with large collections. I'm coming up on 100GB and that would be possible in flac but less practical. Not too mention I would be ordering CDs and often for more money and then ripping them myself. Some devices I use aren't the fastest and would take much longer to sync my collection to. Now with mobile storage becoming so large I could store it on a 1TB card but I also store it to multiple computers as backups. It would take up most to half of the available space. Up until recently I would have needed to maintain a transcoded copy of my collection. Online storage backup also would be much more expensive.

As well lots of music I listen to isn't available in lossless at all or not legally in my country. Maybe at best I could have done half FLAC with a lot of extra shenanigans.

Can't say when an encoding bothered me last but too loudly or badly done stuff bothers me often.

 

[richardm]

Erich Kunzel - Cincinnati Pops Orchestra
The Great Fantasy Adventure Album
Track 5 - "Splitting Hairs"

It's five seconds long. Encode this as MP3 -- any bitrate -- and keep it faithful enough to the original that an average person wearing $100 headphones can't tell the difference between a CD rip directly to WAV and your MP3.

I'll PayPal $20 to the first person who cracks this nut.

 

[Julf]

Erich Kunzel - Cincinnati Pops Orchestra
The Great Fantasy Adventure Album
Track 5 - "Splitting Hairs"

It's five seconds long. Encode this as MP3 -- any bitrate -- and keep it faithful enough to the original that an average person wearing $100 headphones can't tell the difference between a CD rip directly to WAV and your MP3.

I'll PayPal $20 to the first person who cracks this nut.

So I would first have to buy the CD?

 

[Westsounds]

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?

There is a slight resolution difference to my ear, it’s quite pronounced when you A/B it I feel, but, I’ve encoded most of my discs to 320kbs to storage and it’s more than good enough! In fact I only listen to files these days, I am really not bothered by the Nth amount that may be missing. I do not miss a CD player and the hassle of continually changing discs ever!

 

[olieb]

Erich Kunzel - Cincinnati Pops Orchestra
The Great Fantasy Adventure Album
Track 5 - "Splitting Hairs"

It's five seconds long. Encode this as MP3 -- any bitrate -- and keep it faithful enough to the original that an average person wearing $100 headphones can't tell the difference between a CD rip directly to WAV and your MP3.

I'll PayPal $20 to the first person who cracks this nut.

Well, I am not average then. I cannot hear a difference to 320 kbps. I do not understand the use of a heavily clipped file for hearing test either. (I do not have the CD and used the file (lossless) from Apple Music)

 

[ads_cft222]

I find bluetooth listening comfy and sweet for late night blues listening from youtube music (aac 256). But yes tidal connect/qobuz lossless from wifi/ethernet sounds noticeably clearer and more real.

 

[Julf]

I find bluetooth listening comfy and sweet for late night blues listening from youtube music (aac 256). But yes tidal connect/qobuz lossless from wifi/ethernet sounds noticeably clearer and more real.

How did you match levels? I assume it was sighted listening?

 

[ads_cft222]

How did you match levels? I assume it was sighted listening?

I did not. I focused on specific points of the same version of songs. Eg bass region is always glossed over in cellos through bluetooth aac. I mean if we start to doubt also this now, why we care about good measuring devices?

 

[Julf]

I did not.

So there could have been a level difference that could explain your perception.

I mean if we start to doubt also this now, why we care about good measuring devices?

I am not sure I get your point.