Kolya on 24/5/2007 at 22:30
And you're right indeed. The second file is the lowly 128kbs MP3.
Congrats to all who got it right. :thumb:
Schattentänzer on 24/5/2007 at 22:45
Thought so. The smaller frequency range really shows in direct comparison, I was pretty certain after the first listen. I think it would be harder to listen to a single file and guess the bitrate.
Nameless Voice on 25/5/2007 at 00:45
Interestingly, the greater majority though that the 128k version was better quality, not worse - including a lot of the people who claimed to have fancy equipment on which they could 'easily' hear the difference between MP3 bitrates.
I think it's safe to say that, when using a proper encode and the high quality setting, MP3 @ 128k is good enough for the majority of people and music - obviously the quality loss will be more noticeable on some samples than on others, but for the most port, 128k is good enough.
So, for the next test: two wave files: one the original .wav, the other, a sample converted to MP3 then back again. :D
Martin Karne on 25/5/2007 at 01:11
I don't have fancy equipment, I have a normal equipment, receiver Pioneer VSX-D710, speakers Technics SB-A386 with an upgraded ring tweeter and the two woofers running with two different amplifiers.
Sound is subjective, and when is the case when you know the song to judge, you know is different.
They sounded both different, and even when bass seems better with file N2, it has a harsh sound overall and maybe is because of the sharp slope at 16KHz.
The other sounds different and thin. And bass is not there but the slope is softer up to 20KHz.
So for one we should know now which codec was used with each file and with what quality setup was encoded.
Try some industrial or techno will all the stuff playing loud and together and you'll notice it immediately.
Kolya on 25/5/2007 at 11:26
Quote Posted by Martin Karne
So for one we should know now which codec was used with each file and with what quality setup was encoded.
If you mean the test in this thread:...
Quote Posted by Kolya
Both are encoded with MPEG1, constant bitrate and normal stereo btw.
Quote Posted by Kolya
I used LAME version 1.32 engine 3.97 Beta 2 MMX
Schattentänzer on 25/5/2007 at 11:54
Quote Posted by Nameless Voice
Interestingly, the greater majority though that the 128k version was better quality, not worse
Quote Posted by Martin Karne
They sounded both different, and even when bass seems better with file N2, it has a harsh sound overall and maybe is because of the sharp slope at 16KHz.
I don't know for sure, but I guess that the encoder is aiming for a (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_noise) pink noise style spectrum, which would make it a bit "easier on the ear".
Martin Karne on 26/5/2007 at 05:37
Quote Posted by Kolya
If you mean the test in this thread:...
Yeah but which bit rate is the N1? Same codec as well?
In Fraunhofer plugin from the year 2000, by now very old, there is a fast encode mode, a normal mode and a best quality mode.
To me sounds better with that codec, but maybe because they designed the mpeg layer 3 codec they have more experience in that field. (according to tests I have done before)
I remember a techno single from Expo 2000 (Kraftwerk promo) that was encoded at 128kbps sounded with a good deep bass and there was no chirping toward the end of the sound spectrum.
But the song wasn't really packed with a crowded sound like some rock music.
Kolya on 26/5/2007 at 10:19
The first file was compressed at 320kbps with the same codec.
Muzman on 26/5/2007 at 12:36
Hey, I got it. My headphones are decent/ears do work!
GillianSeed on 28/5/2007 at 21:13
Danke@Kolya aber
Speedshare funzt nicht, Megaupload und Filefront krebsen mit 7kb rum.
Läufts in den Morgenstunden besser?
Wie wäre es mit Rapidshare?
