# MP3 encoding bitrates....how good are your ears? What's your standard choice?



## xist (May 9, 2013)

Lots of people make decisions about the quality of MP3's they're happy with (in terms of bitrate) based upon an irrational sense of more is always better. And whilst more bits can be better, if you can't hear it (through it being out of your hearing range or you just "not" hearing it) then it's totally pointless to always opt for encodes beyond your best quality tolerance. Now people can ABX test for themselves but most of the time we don't bother and just trust a gut sense of our bitrate tolerance.

Now, we can't embed MP3's into the forum and streaming sites will generally give you a file size, so i've had to work out a method to create a test to cover 5 different bitrates that's accessible to everyone (which knowing my luck people will ignore and this will fail to serve any purpose...)

I've created a two and a half minute track of 5 samples encoded at different rates (ripped from CD to lossless PCM with EAC and then converted to MP3 with SoX). Listen to the clip (going back if necessary....each one starts after 29 seconds so if you just use 30 second jumps to skip between them you can compare your choices) and decide on an order of best to worst.

Ignore the wrapping...the tags are borked to preserve the different encodes.

Obviously listening hardware will determine how accurate you are so try to use your best headphones/speakers too. And it's two and a half minutes...just be aware that it'd be great if you didn't just stick in random answers. And please don't try to cheat...it's not a test of your "mad listening skills".

Grab the track here (it's not anything awful...)

http://www.mediafire.com/?h0bozv5ts2ajvuz

Listen, (Don't Cheat it's pointless...) then post your conclusions. Best at the top down to worst...e.g

Third clip (Best)
Fifth
First
Fourth
Second(Worst)

*IF THAT'S TOO HARD JUST TELL US WHICH ONES YOU WOULD ACCEPT AND WHICH YOU'D REJECT!*


Also stick in what bitrate you generally opt for in your MP3's!

When interest dies (please be later rather than sooner) i'll let you know exactly what bitrates were used.

Edit - Also i'll repeat myself.....please don't try to cheat...it serves no purpose and if anything you're cheating yourself.....


----------



## KDH (May 9, 2013)

It's saying permission denied. That was fast.


----------



## xist (May 9, 2013)

KDH said:


> It's saying permission denied. That was fast.


 
Holy crap...29 seconds of a song...i really thought that was ok given that every youtube video we post has more music in it...i'll just have to think of something else...


Edit- i'm querying the takedown....falls under part 2 of http://www.royaltyfreemusic.com/public-domain/basic-rules-fair-use.html

I'm also not reuploading because if it turns out that this isn't fair use for "research" it's an honest mistake and i don't want to contravene any laws


----------



## frogboy (May 9, 2013)

Darn, I wanted to try.


----------



## Deleted User (May 9, 2013)

I generally like my music uncompressed (FLAC) and for my portably player I use mp3 320, would really like to try this


----------



## GamerzHell9137 (May 9, 2013)

frogboy said:


> Darn, I wanted to try.


 
Me too :/


----------



## gifi4 (May 9, 2013)

I'm one of those people who doesn't care about bitrates and whatnot. So long as it sounds good it'll stay in my collection.


----------



## air2004 (May 9, 2013)

I want to to try too

you could post it on youtube , make it hidden , then share the link here


----------



## LinkFan16 (May 9, 2013)

I always go with 320 kbps. I got so used to that over time that if I hear anything with a lower bitrate, I immediately recognize that something is missing.


----------



## xist (May 9, 2013)

air2004 said:


> you could post it on youtube , make it hidden , then share the link here


 
Youtube would compress the audio making the whole point moot.

What i'll do is wait for a reply from MF, and if they actually explain things i'll grab a free, non licensed song from Bandcamp and start over...


----------



## Tokiopop (May 9, 2013)

I've not done this particular test, but I've done some 'blind' testing myself between 320kbps mp3 audio and FLAC and I could tell the difference for 9 out of the 10 tracks. Without comparison I don't think I would notice though. 

When it starts getting to 180kbps stuff I can almost always tell immediately without comparison to a higher bit-rate version of the same track.


----------



## xist (May 9, 2013)

Tokiopop said:


> When it starts getting to 180kbps stuff I can almost always tell immediately without comparison to a higher bit-rate version of the same track.


 
Mediafire have just replied saying they'll look into it so hopefully you'll get the chance to test your mettle.


----------



## trumpet-205 (May 10, 2013)

xist said:


> Lots of people make decisions about the quality of MP3's they're happy with (in terms of bitrate) based upon an irrational sense of more is always better. And whilst more bits can be better, if you can't hear it (through it being out of your hearing range or you just "not" hearing it) then it's totally pointless to always opt for encodes beyond your best quality tolerance.


 
Whether or not you can tell a difference involves a lot of factors. Take for example, are you using quality speakers or headphone? Are you using quality sound card or external DAC? How is your source? How is your audio encoder? What settings did you use? etc...

It is true that higher bitrate means less data being discarded (better in a sense that it is close to original source). But if you have say cheap Logitech speaker using motherboard sound chip, chances are you won't be able to tell a difference.


----------



## LockeCole_101629 (May 10, 2013)

if the source is from original disc, 128kbps is enough for me.


----------



## Rydian (May 10, 2013)

Gotta' love targeted ads.


----------



## AlanJohn (May 10, 2013)

I always use FLAC. 320b is the bare minimum for me.


----------



## xist (May 10, 2013)

Mediafire haven't replied but it seems like they've decided i'm clear for what i've used. Listen to the 5 clips and be bored stimulated!


----------



## air2004 (May 10, 2013)

1 sounds like its missing someting , kind of hollow
2 sounds like it has more bass
3 sounds like I hear more intruments
4 sounds like the right ballance between bass , and all instruments
5 sounds like 4


----------



## xist (May 10, 2013)

air2004 said:


> 1 sounds like its missing someting , kind of hollow
> 2 sounds like it has more bass
> 3 sounds like I hear more intruments
> 4 sounds like the right ballance between bass , and all instruments
> 5 sounds like 4


 

That's great and everything but which are you happy with the encode quality and which would you reject as not good enough?




trumpet-205 said:


> Whether or not you can tell a difference involves a lot of factors. Take for example, are you using quality speakers or headphone? Are you using quality sound card or external DAC? How is your source? How is your audio encoder? What settings did you use? etc...
> 
> It is true that higher bitrate means less data being discarded (better in a sense that it is close to original source). But if you have say cheap Logitech speaker using motherboard sound chip, chances are you won't be able to tell a difference.



I do mention that it's hardware related in the first post when i suggest that your best (or just your regular) listening set-up is used. It seemed redundant mentioning every different element as i can count the number of people i know with an external DAC on one hand (excluding myself!) As for the encoder, for this test we're assessing MP3, the most common format and that being the case i've opted for the most recent LAME binary (which has no history of regressions and should be ideal). The encoder choice you have to view as optimal so it's primarily about if you're ripping your own music then what bitrate would you be happy with?


----------



## Issac (May 10, 2013)

Okay, so here's mine. I usually use 320 kbit/s (but nothing beats a good vinyl!)


Spoiler



best: fourth
third
fifth
first
worst: second


 
And I'd accept everyone of these to be honest... But if I were to choose, I'd reject the bottom two.


----------



## xist (May 10, 2013)

Issac said:


> Okay, so here's mine. I usually use 320 kbit/s (but nothing beats a good vinyl!)
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


 
Thanks! That's perfect (spoilered too!)


----------



## DinohScene (May 10, 2013)

MP3, WMA, WAV.
Whatever me cars HiFi accepts .__.

I prefer MP3 with 320 kbit/s


However, nothing beats FM/AM radio signals on a old vacutube radio with mono speaker from the 40's <3

I'll give a listen to the music when I get home;]


----------



## TheRedfox (May 10, 2013)

When i get home i'll use my ampifiler with 96khz digital input xP
On my smartphone i generally use MP3 320k
If i listen music with my ampifiler(most of my music is ripped from vinyl, from artists like sonne adam where vinyl is a much better listining experience) i use 96KHZ stereo FLAC(variable bitrate of 4-6mbit/s, higer than YT 1080p lol)


----------



## xist (May 10, 2013)

TheRedfox said:


> When i get home i'll use my ampifiler with 96khz digital input xP
> On my smartphone i generally use MP3 320k
> If i listen music with my ampifiler(most of my music is ripped from vinyl, from artists like sonne adam where vinyl is a much better listining experience) i use 96KHZ stereo FLAC(variable bitrate of 4-6mbit/s)


 
It's actually to get results from a good set-up, so as long as you don't try to "cheat" i look forward to your ratings.

As for Sonne Adam being much better on Vinyl...i think that probably falls into the same sort of argument we have about acceptable bitrates. I've only heard Transformation in digital form but it's still densely ridden with that oppressive atmosphere.

One thing is for certain..Vinyl is a billion times better than this new fangled craze for limited cassette tape runs.


----------



## kristianity77 (May 10, 2013)

I always went with 320 but now Im not bothered. There are certain processes now which can make even a low bitrate MP3 sound absolutely amazing. Sonys own Clearaudio+ on their own Walkman and Xperia devices can make a low bitrate MP3 sound unreal. I wont pretend to understand how it does it, but it just...does

http://www.sony.co.uk/hub/1237476652649/5/2


----------



## kisamesama (May 10, 2013)

there is difference between 320kbs vs 128kbs.. i usually listen to 320kbs and for some music i also have flac versions


----------



## air2004 (May 11, 2013)

xist said:


> That's great and everything but which are you happy with the encode quality and which would you reject as not good enough?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


1 is horrible , I would go with 4  being the best  , then 3 .


----------



## nukeboy95 (May 11, 2013)

Issac said:


> (but nothing beats a good vinyl!)


VINYL FTW!


----------



## air2004 (May 11, 2013)

nukeboy95 said:


> VINYL FTW!


I had to look up FTW awhile back , when I was growing up , it used to mean something different lol
and even now when I see it , I'm like wtf ? why do people say that ? For the win ,  really ? This isn't hollywood squares ( I dont even think people who use theFTW , know that it came from that show )


----------



## nukeboy95 (May 11, 2013)

air2004 said:


> I had to look up FTW awhile back , when I was growing up , it used to mean something different lol
> and even now when I see it , I'm like wtf ? why do people say that ? For the win , really ? This isn't hollywood squares ( I dont even think people who use theFTW , know that it came from that show )


its not for the win its "Fuck The World"


----------



## air2004 (May 11, 2013)

Thats what it used to be when I was growing up lol Fuck The World , my punk friends used to to write it here and there , and my non punk friends ( disgruntled youth , aka thought they were cool , would write FUFL )


----------



## Hanafuda (May 11, 2013)

I'm 45 years old so I know better than to even try. Besides the exposure I got being in a couple bands in the 80's, shooting firearms, and a couple industrial jobs when I was younger, it's inevitable that a male's hearing will deteriorate with age. My music collection is 99% FLAC and I encode to 320CBR when I make mp3's for portable use, but I know it's probably wasted on my ears.

Just giving you all something to look forward to


----------



## air2004 (May 11, 2013)

Hanafuda said:


> I'm 45 years old so I know better than to even try. Besides the exposure I got being in a couple bands in the 80's, shooting firearms, and a couple industrial jobs when I was younger, it's inevitable that a male's hearing will deteriorate with age. My music collection is 99% FLAC and I encode to 320CBR when I make mp3's for portable use, but I know it's probably wasted on my ears.
> 
> Just giving you all something to look forward to


 LOL


----------



## xist (May 11, 2013)

I'm genuinely surprised that there aren't more people who are picky about their encodes, and those that are aren't even interested enough to try (c'mon Hanafuda, 320 isn't portable! Give this a shot)

Even if you can't be bothered to give an order at least single out the best and worst....only 2 people have played properly, and that tells us nothing...


----------



## pasc (May 11, 2013)

Qualitywise: 320kb is just good enough if I get the choice to rip from flac/cd to a file.
IF however I only get lower samples than this I just accept them aswell as long as it is the music I like.


talking about ears... I find my (now 6 years old) trusty headphones ouputting lower quality music nowadays.

Gotta get some new ones.

Guess they play a huge part for me when it comes to music.


----------



## xist (May 11, 2013)

pasc said:


> Qualitywise: 320kb is just good enough if I get the choice to rip from flac/cd to a file.
> IF however I only get lower samples than this I just accept them aswell as long as it is the music I like.
> 
> 
> ...


 
How about you rate the sample? Pretty please?


----------



## Hielkenator (May 11, 2013)

192kbps is the minimum for me.

After that some dynamics are lost.
It depends on the music.
I love metal, this type of music generally has lots of highs and lows.
Most noticabily first are the Drums ( rides, hi-hat and crashes)
A lower bit rate tends to get 'wavery' on those fronts.
Sometimes kick drums can get 'fluffy' if there's a lot going on in a track.

I thought number 4 sounded the best, but I'd have to compare it to the original wave file.

Remember 16-bit 44100khz is probably the most a human hearing can in terms of quality.

BUT when conversions are made the source file tremendously matters.
I would go no lower than 96000 khz source in that regard.A higer bit rate can bitrate during recording can help eliminating artifacting when downsampling during the mastering process.
I can hear a huge difference between my own home recordings ( 24-bit - 96000khz source)
converted to 192kbps mp3 opposed to a retail CD ( 16-bit-44100 khz source) converted to 192kbps.
This is also the reason almost all music is mastered directly to mp3 from its digital recording source 'to be sold in that format via i-tunes and alike.
Aside of it's digital pressed disc release( cd=44100khz - 16 dithered)

So it all depends on the source used before compressing.


----------



## the_randomizer (May 11, 2013)

Either FLAC or WAV, but if I ever compressed, I'd go with 320 kbps MP3s.  Anything less than 128 kbps makes my ears bleed.


----------



## Minox (May 11, 2013)

Personally I tend to base my decision of music format upon how much storage space the device I'm going to listen to it on has. Granted, I probably can't tell the difference between these formats by listening but if I have the space to spare and the file sizes seems reasonable I don't see an issue.

FLAC - For storage and transcoding purposes on my desktop.
MP3 V0 - Laptop
MP3 V2 - Smartphone


----------



## pasc (May 11, 2013)

Well that song (Lemonheads ?) sounds neat (bass/pitch wise).

I'd give it a 4/5.


----------



## xist (May 11, 2013)

pasc said:


> Well that song (Lemonheads ?) sounds neat (bass/pitch wise).
> 
> I'd give it a 4/5.


 
I meant, which of the 5 clips do you believe sounds the best quality wise and which the worst? (without checking bitrate as they play or using any analysis of the wave)


----------



## WDae (May 12, 2013)

I just dislike a lossy compression...

I always use flac & png instead of mp3/mp4 or jpeg.


----------



## xist (May 12, 2013)

OK....well this totally failed as an experiment because it seems like people read the topic title but not the first post...

First things first - you listen with your ears, not your eyes. The placebo effect is a very powerful thing which is why i tried to obscure the sample rates. This is the indicator of what they actually were -







We have about 3 results about the encodes posted in this topic and whilst it appears that 320 was identified positively, it could equally be said that it wasn't as the lowest bitrates are as likely to appear in close second. In this low sample i'd hazard that there's no real perceived difference detected.

In this sample -
http://rghost.net/45949862

there are two clips (for some reason this broke 50% of the media players i tried it in...it should be ok in Windows Media Player...it's a result of me jamming two different quality MP3's together whilst having them retaining their unique qualities). If you can't definitely identify the better track (stick it on repeat and see if you notice the difference) then it should call into question whether you're aiming too high with your current quality threshold. This sample is a perfect demonstration of potential compression artefacts with it's rapid attack so if they both sound pretty much the same to you i'd suggest you consider lowering your standards. And remember you're looking for artefacts and not just listening so this is an unnatural comparison anyway...


----------



## gamewitch (May 13, 2013)

ollepoll said:


> I generally like my music uncompressed (FLAC) and for my portably player I use mp3 320, would really like to try this


This is me, only I have a iPod classic so every thing nearly on there is in FLAC (I am running Rockbox that is how I can play Flac files on a iPod)


----------

