Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion The Water Cooler MP3 Quality test

In reply to:

---

Hmm... I find it strange you can't tell the difference. I can tell the difference even with 320 kbps MP3s when there's a lot going on in the music.

---

I find it strange as well. I thought for sure that I would be able to tell the difference as I felt I had very discerning ears. Hence why I have invested so much time and money into my audio equipment. I am 31 years old and test just fine with my hearing. I am going to have to do more tests before I decide on what rate to go with but perhaps the burners, software, and media all play a part in this as well.

Or I just can't tell the difference.

Also for those of you that are certain that you can hear the difference have you done any a/b testing where you don't know which is being played? Cause I would have bet money that I could have guessed the different types before I actually did the test.

Alan if you are listening have you any experience with blind test of different mp3 formats?

This is all very interesting to me and thanks for all the comments guys.

for those who dont want to go all out with the 320kbps there is vbr, if utilized corretly. i use exact audio copy in secure mode with the alt lame extreme preset with yeilds bitrates ranging from 192-320, but it mostly stays in the 230-260 range, i cant difference between source and original with this bitrate, and it is quickly becoming the standard for release groups, rather than 192

OK. Just did another test with the same Perfect Circle album in both original and 128MP3. Playing at a level of 90-93db via direct mode (just M60's) and stereo mode (M60's and Hsu VTF3 MK2) I tried the test a couple different ways. One was to play a section of music on one disc, say the intro, a chorus, or a verse, then play the same section on the other disc. Then I tried the original test again of starting both discs simultaneously and switching back and forth.

Well here is what I have to say. . . .



Let it be known that this is an open invite. If anybody wants to come over my house and have a listen and show me that they can tell which is MP3 and which is the original as I switch them back and forth, I will reward them with much beer and much envy. For I cannot, and I cannot believe that I cannot.

More testing is to follow.

In reply to:

---

Let it be known that this is an open invite. If anybody wants to come over my house and have a listen and show me that they can tell which is MP3 and which is the original as I switch them back and forth, I will reward them with much beer and much envy. For I cannot, and I cannot believe that I cannot.

---

I have been doing this since the day's of Napster and to date and I'm not kidding, none of my beloved audiophile buddy's have been able to pick them apart when push comes to shove. I doubt you will have any takers that will prove you wrong.

In reply to:

---

I have been doing this since the day's of Napster and to date and I'm not kidding, none of my beloved audiophile buddy's have been able to pick them apart when push comes to shove. I doubt you will have any takers that will prove you wrong

---

We are talking about MP3s burned onto a music cd, not mp3s burned as files? As I said before, I can hear the difference on most MP3s, but only occasionally when they are burned as a music cd.

Either or. I have yet to meet someone who could pick it out whether I'm playing an MP3 at 320kps or the actual cd.

In reply to:

---

We are talking about MP3s burned onto a music cd, not mp3s burned as files? As I said before, I can hear the difference on most MP3s, but only occasionally when they are burned as a music cd.

---

I am ripping the original into the computer at 128 MP3 and then burning this album onto a blank cd-r media as an MP3 file but I don't think it would matter if I burned it as a Wav file because it has already been compressed and no amount of "uncompressing" should make it sound any better. 2nd law of thermodynamics or computerdynamics or something.

Hmmm... It's true that after ripping using lossy compression algorithms you don't recreate the lost info when burnig back onto a cd as a music/wav file. But last night, just trying to see if I'm fooling myself, I had my wife play "Us and Them" from DSOTM by Pink Floyd for me in 3 formats:

1) Original source, the remastered 20th Anniversary version.
2) MP3, ripped at 320kbps, burned as a file
3) MP3, ripped at 320kbps then burned as a music cd/wav.

And the one I picked out as different was the mp3 file. This wasn't especially scientific but I heard a difference immediately. On the other hand, I wrote down "Original" for the burned wav file and vice versa with the original source.
Again, the mp3 file was harsh on the highs and very dry overall. Could be my player? Who knows?

Very interesting. How much of the song were you playing at a time and did you have to change discs in the player, (ie how long of an interuption between one disc and another)?

I had to correct the volume level of the MP3 to match the other, was your MP3 stuff at the same db level as the original? (this is probably specific to my player setup situation but you never know, obviously people would pick out a volume level difference and could interpret this as quality. . .ie the bass and treble not hitting like they should)

Thanks for testing this out. Hope more can also so we can get some kind of consensus on the MP3's

CD's are in a changer. I listened to the whole song for all of them. My wife ran the changer. I used my trusty Rat Shack SPL meter to set the level at 90db for each disc. I waited 5 minutes between tests, which also allowed my wife to queue and pause the discs. Again, the results are probably dependent on many things. I used Grip to rip/encode, cdrdao to burn. It's possible my player isn't as good at reading mp3 files as others. I have noticed some recordings sound different between original source and ripped/burned as music discs. I haven't tried any of this using one of the lossless file formats. I have used Lame, Music Match, and WMP to rip, not really noticing any differences, then again I haven't done any 1:1 comparisons of the software as far as music quality. And I certainly don't claim to have golden ears that can hear the creamy-smooth richness of the rhodium-plated contacts of a $2500 power cable vs. the slightly sucked out sound of the $1500 one and the unlistenable harshness of the Rat Shack special. This test is certainly easy enough for all of us to try. I posit that the player is the most likely cause of real differences.