Comments on: Blind-testing MP3 compression

By: Tim Schmidt

Tim Schmidt — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 10:02:12 +0000

These comments are amazing.

So many listeners bash mp3s but never indicate they have ever compared them to less lossy formats.

Thank you for your hard work and scientifically-minded testing.

By: Tomasz

Tomasz — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 23:20:06 +0000

Did you try 256 or 192 kbps? If not, you might be in for another surprise… :)

(Make sure you use the latest LAME version and equalize loudness before ABX’ing.)

By: Tomasz

Tomasz — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 23:15:51 +0000

Yep, I used VBR in all my tests.

By: AlanAudio

AlanAudio — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 21:46:58 +0000

I consider myself an audiophile having modified or paid to have modified most of my gear. I did an A/B test of 3 different CDs played though a highly modified Pioneer SACD player into a NAD C372 integrated into some Monitor RS6s. I was frustrated to find that I could not tell the difference between this and the same music recorded in 320 kbps MP3 through my Squeezebox music server. I had both running at the same time.

This will now cause me to quit ripping all my new CDs in FLAC. I can now use just the high quality MP3 and swallow my audiophile pride.

One Mp3 folder structure will be much easier to manage than having to deal with making two copies of the same music. I use the MP3 files to copy to my 16GB cell phone card.

By: mwalimu

mwalimu — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 22:23:56 +0000

If I understood correctly, you said that the 128 kbps samples were actually VBR with and average bit rate of 128. Is that correct?

If so, then I have to wonder what kind of results you would have gotten had you used 128 kbps CBR (constant bit rate) instead. When a good encoder (such as Lame) is encoding at VBR, it figures out which parts need to be encoded at a higher bitrate, so that cymbal crash or complex guitar riff might be encoded at 256 kbps or 320 kbps in those fractions of a second where it’s most needed, while other less complex parts are encoded at lower bit rates, to keep the target average near 128 kbps. In practice, when most people talk about a 128 kbps files, they are talking about CBR files. And forcing all of those complex waveforms into 128k frames can take a much greater toll on sound quality than when the encoder has the flexibility to use higher bitrate frames as needed.

By: tszynalski

tszynalski — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 11:35:31 +0000

Foobar2000 plays WV files out of the box; for Winamp, you need a plug-in.

By: ZeeKat

ZeeKat — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 21:34:08 +0000

Might be, it was some bog standard Audigy2 soundcard with not-so-great Technics amplituner and then Grado SR60 headphones. Still, 128kbit files made by older compressor had rather hideous fluttery effect at i.e. cymbals – that was hard to overlook even on crap hardware. I’ll check that castanets example as soon as I figure out what to do with .wv file :)

By: tszynalski

tszynalski — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 16:41:10 +0000

Well, a lot depends on the quality of your source (good sound card) and the speakers (isolating headphones are the most revealing). It also takes a bit of practice to learn what you should listen for.

Check out the “Castanets” sample here . The difference at 128 kbps is quite conspicuous — the compressed sample sounds a bit like “shshsh”, while the original is crisp and aggressive, with clear separation between individual clicks.

By: ZeeKat

ZeeKat — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 06:53:08 +0000

I guess this ruins my reputation as a music lover, but I couldn’t tell the difference between LAME encoded 128kbit and CD to save my life (ABX’d twice, to be sure). Or maybe people bashing lower-bitrate mp3s just use crap compressors, LAME seems to be really smart.