Timeline for Are there any audible differences between 192 and 320 kbit/s .mp3 files?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 6, 2016 at 11:02 | comment | added | John Leidegren | Thomas also introduces us to the concept of M/S listening. You can read more about that here varietyofsound.wordpress.com/2011/09/25/the-mid-side-technique | |
| Jan 6, 2016 at 10:56 | comment | added | John Leidegren | For example, about 10 minutes into the video. The researcher (Thomas Lund) talks about something called codec overloading. This can happen with there isn't enough headroom in the signal going in to the codec. The amount of headroom required varies by codec and codec settings. There is a relationship between encoding and mastering. Jeff does not touch on any of these things. Thus I'd call his experiment amusing but not very significant. | |
| Jan 6, 2016 at 10:52 | comment | added | John Leidegren | @naught101 I'm not going to persuaded by Jeff Atwood and some other PC magazine. I would not call what they present as evidence of anything. It simply suggests that en mass, an average reader of Jeff Atwood's blog cannot tell the difference. Again, I suggest you watch the video presentation, it actually contains relevant material to the topic by relevant researcher in the field. | |
| Jan 6, 2016 at 6:17 | comment | added | naught101 | I already posted an answer below that includes links to two blind studies that indicate no human-detectable difference found between 192 and 320kbit. | |
| Jan 5, 2016 at 17:41 | comment | added | John Leidegren | @naught101 if this peaks your interest I suggest you go and do the experiments. How else will you learn? I don't have the answer, I can only draw from my limited experience. I found one video that I think you should watch. It's about mastering/headroom the "loudness war" it's very interesting. youtube.com/watch?v=BhA7Vy3OPbc this is one of my original references that I couldn't find by people who are active researchers in the field. | |
| Jan 4, 2016 at 2:04 | comment | added | naught101 | Sorry John, but that's totally unscientific. There's no way to guarantee that you're not just triggering confirmation bias. Of course a "better" sound file will sound "better" if you already know it's better. A/B blind testing would work, but it's not that easy for anyone to set up at home. I have serious doubts that the brain has the ability to decide that MP3 algorithm-related artefacts are "noise" and not just part of the music. I mean, Vinyl is lossy and lower quality than a decent MP3, but people still like the sound. Why couldn't the same be true of low quality MP3? | |
| Jan 1, 2016 at 14:07 | comment | added | John Leidegren | @naught101 Also, our brain can certainly reconstruct a damaged audio signal but at some point it will require more of your attention to still be able to determine what it is you're listening to. As your attention is drawn to the noise, it's your brain basically devoting more energy to the task. | |
| Jan 1, 2016 at 14:00 | comment | added | John Leidegren | @naught101 I can't find the original source anymore, sorry. But you should be able to independently be able to verify this quite easily. Just download some MP3 encoders and fiddle with various quality settings. If you listen to music at a low bit-rate for an extended period and then switch to the same music with (but which a much higher bit rate) I'll be surprised if you didn't sense some kind of relief. Though at what point the compression is an issue or not that's probably very individual. | |
| Dec 25, 2015 at 9:52 | comment | added | naught101 | This answer really needs refefences. | |
| Jan 27, 2014 at 15:07 | history | migrated | from avp.stackexchange.com (revisions) | ||
| May 22, 2011 at 14:26 | history | answered | John Leidegren | CC BY-SA 3.0 |