Again, it depends on the source file. Garbage in<>Garbage out. Even at 320kbps. Are folks even still ripping cd's these days? Most delivery methods are already in digital format.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
128k conversion of MP3's any loss?
- Thread starter P. Aaron
- Start date
I did a pretty extensive test once in a mastering studio I worked in with another engineer. I could tell a difference between most of the formats. This was on a $70k set of mastering speakers in a acoustically perfect room. Through iPhone earbuds, you won't tell much difference.
320 is the minimum for me, and I guarantee I can tell the difference between that and a .wave file. I'm certainly no Luddite, but whoever said no human can tell the difference is wrong. Played on a good sound system, the difference between a CD and MP3 isn't even subtle, it's obvious (Vinyl still sounds better than any digital format to me, but it's not very convenient). 128k files sound horrible to me, even just on my car stereo (though it's a good car stereo). Those 128k files are strictly for an mp3 player or iPod with earphones.
It is very obvious when you convert orchestral stuff down. Tbh i only listen to the stuff at 320 minimum.
Echoing what most are saying...
128k - I can hear a clear difference, especially artifacts in the high end. Listen for the cymbals.
192k and up - don't hear a difference anymore. Maybe if I listen really closely, but from 256 and upwards - no chance. I encode my MP3s with 320k to be on the safe side. I can live with the space demand.
128k - I can hear a clear difference, especially artifacts in the high end. Listen for the cymbals.
192k and up - don't hear a difference anymore. Maybe if I listen really closely, but from 256 and upwards - no chance. I encode my MP3s with 320k to be on the safe side. I can live with the space demand.
I think it mainly boils down to compression ratios. If you originally ripped a CD at 320k and convert it to 128k you will hear a little loss. If you ripped it originally at 192k or 160k the difference will not be as noticeable. I tend to rip all my music at 160k. It sounds decent and saves hard space. I think most audiophiles will say compressed music never sounds as good.
A simple test :
- rip a track in WAV (lossless)
- convert that file in MP3 (or any codec you want)
- put those two file in any multitrack software (Audacity for example)
- invert the phase (or polarity ?) of one track
- listen to what has been lost after converting from WAV to MP3
What you hear is the difference between the two tracks, or what is missing in the converted file.
At 320kbs, it is easy to ear what has been taken from the original ; but at 128, you can realize the amplitude of the damage.
The horror ! Oh the horror...
- rip a track in WAV (lossless)
- convert that file in MP3 (or any codec you want)
- put those two file in any multitrack software (Audacity for example)
- invert the phase (or polarity ?) of one track
- listen to what has been lost after converting from WAV to MP3
What you hear is the difference between the two tracks, or what is missing in the converted file.
At 320kbs, it is easy to ear what has been taken from the original ; but at 128, you can realize the amplitude of the damage.
The horror ! Oh the horror...
OK, here is a fun test for those of you who are able to easily tell the difference between MP3s and uncompressed files.
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
This zip file contains 15 one-minute clips of Holst's "Mars." Some of the examples are uncompressed .wav files. Others were converted MP3 using LAME 3.99.5 at its V2 setting, which resulted in a 194kbps MP3 file, and then converted back to .wav.
Can you tell which are the .wav files and which are the MP3s? (Please listen to the files and do not use an audio editor, etc. to determine which is which.)
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
This zip file contains 15 one-minute clips of Holst's "Mars." Some of the examples are uncompressed .wav files. Others were converted MP3 using LAME 3.99.5 at its V2 setting, which resulted in a 194kbps MP3 file, and then converted back to .wav.
Can you tell which are the .wav files and which are the MP3s? (Please listen to the files and do not use an audio editor, etc. to determine which is which.)
The logic that MP3 is built on is that that stuff would have been masked my other noises in the context of the original.
I just listened to a bunch of these. I have to be honest I can't tell which is which. Though I do hear a bit of difference between some of them. Then again, none of them sound bad.
I will in advance say that I am listening on crappy earbuds on my work laptop in the office! Should I be working? Anyway, I think:
1: Uncompressed (U)
2: MP3 (M)
3: M
4: U
5: M
6: U
7: M
8: U
9: U
10: M
11: U
12: U
13: M
14: U
15: U
How'd I do?
1: Uncompressed (U)
2: MP3 (M)
3: M
4: U
5: M
6: U
7: M
8: U
9: U
10: M
11: U
12: U
13: M
14: U
15: U
How'd I do?
I'll say what I was listening for as well : I think The MP3's have brighter bits and then more 'muffled' bits, while the uncompressed ones have the same sense of air throughout..?
Using a high quality encoder in high quality mode (I use `lame -h`), I rate 128 KB as having a small audible difference for my rock listening. Everything about 15KHz is either gone or unrecognizable but let's be honest most of us can't hear up there. There is some difference around where snare drums are, using a program that plays just the difference between two version of an audio file you can identify it, and if you then go and selectively look for trouble in those areas in the mp3 you'll notice.
But I generally use HQ 128 Kb/s as it really helps feeding random devices that have little memory. I can then hold "precious" songs in flac instead of any lossless compression.
As mentioned - in general you want to avoid re-compressing an already compressed file.
But I generally use HQ 128 Kb/s as it really helps feeding random devices that have little memory. I can then hold "precious" songs in flac instead of any lossless compression.
As mentioned - in general you want to avoid re-compressing an already compressed file.
You should decide this yourself. Take a standard WAV file and encode it in various MP3 settings: 320, 256, 192, .... 128, listen to each with a set of good headphones and pick your poison. Listen to the same set of comparison files on your portable player, stereo, car stereo, and any other output device that makes sense. They will vary in sonic quality and file size. All this talk is theoretical unless you listen and make your own decision.
