MP3 The Great MP3 Bitrate Experiment/Debate

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2012/06/concluding-the-great-mp3-bitrate-experiment.html

A sample from the article:

  Quote

Even without busting out hard-core statistics, I think it's clear from the basic summary statistics graph that only one audio sample here was discernably different than the rest – the 128kbps CBR. And by different I mean "audibly worse". I've maintained for a long, long time that typical 128kbps MP3s are not acceptable quality. Even for the worst song ever. So I guess we can consider this yet another blind listening test proving that point. Give us VBR at an average bitrate higher than 128kbps, or give us death!

But what about the claim that people with dog ears can hear the difference between the higher bitrate MP3 samples? Well, first off, it's incredibly strange that the first sample – encoded at a mere 160kbps – does better on average than everything else. I think it's got to be bias from appearing first in the list of audio samples. It's kind of an outlier here for no good reason, so we have to almost throw it out. More fuel for the argument that people can't hear a difference at bitrates above 128kbps, and even if they do, they're probably imagining it. If we didn't throw out this result, we'd have to conclude that the 160kbps sample was somehow superior to the raw CD audio, which is … clearly insane.

Running T-Test and Analysis of Variance (it's in the spreadsheet) on the non-insane results, I can confirm that the 128kbps CBR sample is lower quality with an extremely high degree of statistical confidence. Beyond that, as you'd expect, nobody can hear the difference between a 320kbps CBR audio file and the CD. And the 192kbps VBR results have a barely statistically significant difference versus the raw CD audio at the 95% confidence level. I'm talking absolutely wafer thin here.

Anyway, between the anomalous 160kbps result and the blink-and-you'll-miss-it statistical difference between the 192kbps result and the raw CD audio, I'm comfortable calling this one as I originally saw it. The data from this experiment confirms what I thought all along: for pure listening, the LAME defaults of 192kbps variable bit rate encoding do indeed provide a safe, optimal aural bang for the byte – even dogs won't be able to hear the difference between 192kbps VBR MP3 tracks and the original CD.

  On 6/28/2012 at 6:54 PM, Joyrex said:

  Quote

even dogs won't be able to hear the difference between 192kbps VBR MP3 tracks and the original CD.

the whole 'study' loses any form of legitimacy for even alluding to such a fucking preposterous remark

Ah man, this really aint gonna end well if the last can-of-worms topic is anything to go by - http://forum.watmm.com/topic/67080-not-enough-tickets/

  On 6/28/2012 at 7:08 PM, mcbpete said:

Ah man, this really aint gonna end well if the last can-of-worms topic is anything to go by - http://forum.watmm.c...enough-tickets/

haha I forgot about my drawing

  On 6/28/2012 at 7:02 PM, oscillik said:

  On 6/28/2012 at 6:54 PM, Joyrex said:

  Quote

even dogs won't be able to hear the difference between 192kbps VBR MP3 tracks and the original CD.

 

the whole 'study' loses any form of legitimacy for even alluding to such a fucking preposterous remark

Oh, surely you, the master of smarmy remarks, can recognize a derisive remark when he sees it?

Coding Horror is a good blog but I wouldn't trust him when it comes to audio. It's not really his field.

He probably should've used a track that doesn't sound like shit in the first place. Although I'll agree that when you get into the higher bitrates the difference is negligible, but it is there.

(null)

  On 6/28/2012 at 7:29 PM, Gocab said:

He probably should've used a track that doesn't sound like shit in the first place. Although I'll agree that when you get into the higher bitrates the difference is negligible, but it is there.

I gathered the whole point of choosing a shitty track was to eliminate any user perception of 'liking' the music and thus being more forgiving of any acoustic shortcomings...

I meant it sounds like it's mastered pretty badly from the start, so it's harder to judge the sound quality.

I can hear the difference between a crappy youtube vid and the music on a CD, but that's about it.

  On 6/28/2012 at 9:30 PM, Joyrex said:

  On 6/28/2012 at 7:29 PM, Gocab said:

He probably should've used a track that doesn't sound like shit in the first place. Although I'll agree that when you get into the higher bitrates the difference is negligible, but it is there.

I gathered the whole point of choosing a shitty track was to eliminate any user perception of 'liking' the music and thus being more forgiving of any acoustic shortcomings...

That makes sense. Though I saw a comment mentioning the choice was a 80s rock song with early-era digital recording equipment and therefore a "shitty" track. Maybe an analog master tape of an orchestral recording would be ideal. Meh, whatever.

  On 6/28/2012 at 10:16 PM, Bewarethefriendlyfoil said:

I can hear the difference between a crappy youtube vid and the music on a CD, but that's about it.

I can always tell mp3s apart, bad rips versus LAME encoding, etc.

the only way to conduct this test would be to send random people cds, ask them to listen and see if they say something like 'sounds like mp3s' without any suggestion. all the 'blind tests' are heading for a result and that's already an influence on the judgement of the listener.

imo.

the difference between 256 and wav/flac becomes noticable to me on music with extremely well produced bass, on high end club soundsystems. when you turn it up to full volume you get a kind of faint white noise behind the sound.

at home though theres basically no difference.

I (null) (null) difference (null) the (null) dimension.

  On 6/29/2012 at 12:12 AM, xxx said:

*the rush of waves and pinging sounds as someone does 2kts to this thread*

 

I am guilty of always buying WAV/FLAC even though there's probably zero justification for the extra $2 (excepting the bandwidth/server cost for the provider). I still have that "mp3s are free" orientation that is not correct but difficult to reverse.

Same, I figure if I finally get around to a nice stereo system it'll be worth it. If I need to make mp3 copies for my iPod that's no big deal either.

WAVs are just marketing strategies!

  On 6/28/2012 at 7:08 PM, mcbpete said:

Ah man, this really aint gonna end well if the last can-of-worms topic is anything to go by - http://forum.watmm.c...enough-tickets/

oh wow I forgot about that thread. Still never got a straight answer on whether there is actually a measurable difference (audible or not) between 16 and 24 bit Oversteps.

i enjoy the high quality for some things, but i like really shite quality as well

Raster Noton stuff sounds really terrible when ripped to mp3. I don't think anyone would have trouble hearing the difference, unless they're listening on shit speakers/headphones.

You give me a modern well produced album with really pristine crisp natural cymbals heavily in the mix and I can tell you the difference between 192k and 320k

Rage Against the Machine's debut album is generally considered to be a reference-type album for audio quality.

there is not a difference between 256k & 320k

that's why there's not a difference between 16 bit, 24 bit & 32 bit...

but between mp3@320k & CD, there is a difference if we play them loud! very loud! but LOUD!

...

i never thought there was a difference between 320 mp3 and CD, but when I got oversteps on CD after listening to it on the pre-release download I did hear loads of new bits hearing it on CD.

Also Untilted sounds loads better on CD, which is gutting because I lost mine after playing it in our hotel in ibiza to annoy everyone on holiday!