Slashdot Mirror

All mp3 compression is digital. Whether the audio was originally analog or not is unrelated to hard it will be to compress. The 128kbps mp3s were preferred in the case of music with a lot of high frequency content, which is hard to compress. Because of this it is more distorted, and this "sizzle" distortion if what some people prefer.

Also, not all MP3 encoders are alike.

Results.

Back in the day, the first few seconds of New Order's Blue Monday (consisting of nothing more than a mechanical drum beat and a simple keyboard) was the gold standard for spotting poor encoders.

A good encoder (LAME) produced good audio at 128kbps, and was indistinguishable from CD at 320kbps. A poor encoder (Xing, or BladeEnc) produced crap at 128, and artifacts were audible even at 320.

The interesting thing about the /. article is that a generation raised on heavily-compressed audio (they've only heard their friends' voices over wireless phones, their music in heavily-compressed for streaming audio, etc...) thinks that the digital compression artifacts are features, not bugs.

What they call "sizzle", we called "sounds mushy, like the drums are being played underwater".

I have a cabinet, in which I keep all my CD's. In the computer, I have the lossy version of every one of them, recorded in variable-bit-rate mp3. Until I can tell the difference between them and the original, even if I have enough disc space, I won't use it for lossless audio.

Yup, my CDs are my backup, but I haven't touched the things in years. I use the same Lame VBR V5 encoded mp3s at home (on my computer speakers or on my Grados) an on my car stereo. In all cases, I can't tell the difference.

Do you want to know the REAL reason why there hasn't been a 128k listening test at Hydrogen Audio recently? It's because they already did this three years ago, and the winner(s) were already imperceptible from the source then.

128k is conqured territory. This is mostly an update to see where encoders have gone in the last four years (if anywhere).

Only up half an hour and already slashdotted.

Here is a direct link to the download site: http://www.listening-tests.info/mp3-128-1/

5) Despite the fact that the MP3 technology is over a decade old, encoders are still getting better. You only have to look at the progress LAME has made (particularly the 3.90 and 3.97 'milestone' releases) in not just surpassing the quality of other once-popular MP3 encoders such as Fraunhofer and Xing but in some more recent listening tests even equalling its successor, at ~128kbps VBR, let alone the more high quality VBR presets (V0/V2) that many people rip in and that most pirated releases are released in via the scene.

As many others have noted, Amazon uses LAME, which is the best MP3 encoder. At equal bitrates, LAME MP3 should be roughly equal in quality to iTunes AAC. At 192kbps MP3 vs 128kbps AAC, LAME should be clearly better. At 256kbps, there should be no difference to all but those with canine hearing and zillion-dollar stereo systems.

Roberto Amorim and Sebastian (who appears to be continuing Amorim's work) have done some interesting "public double-blind listening tests."

• Sebastian's Public, Multiformat Listening Test @ 128 kbps (December 2005) shows LAME 3.97 Beta 2 being roughly equal to iTunes AAC 6.0.1.3.
• Amorim's MP3 at 128kbps test (February 2004) shows iTunes 4.2 MP3 performing much worse than LAME 3.95.
• Amorim's AAC at 128kbps test v2 (February 2004) shows iTunes AAC performing much better than other AAC encoders at the time. At least we know that the vast majority of home-created AAC files (created with iTunes) are pretty good quality.

As many others have noted, Amazon uses LAME, which is the best MP3 encoder. At equal bitrates, LAME MP3 should be roughly equal in quality to iTunes AAC. At 192kbps MP3 vs 128kbps AAC, LAME should be clearly better. At 256kbps, there should be no difference to all but those with canine hearing and zillion-dollar stereo systems.

Roberto Amorim and Sebastian (who appears to be continuing Amorim's work) have done some interesting "public double-blind listening tests."

• Sebastian's Public, Multiformat Listening Test @ 128 kbps (December 2005) shows LAME 3.97 Beta 2 being roughly equal to iTunes AAC 6.0.1.3.
• Amorim's MP3 at 128kbps test (February 2004) shows iTunes 4.2 MP3 performing much worse than LAME 3.95.
• Amorim's AAC at 128kbps test v2 (February 2004) shows iTunes AAC performing much better than other AAC encoders at the time. At least we know that the vast majority of home-created AAC files (created with iTunes) are pretty good quality.

But it doesn't, not unless you're under 128kbps.

See the 128k listening test here. Itunes is TIED with Lame -V5 at 128k.

In fact, another test performed in December 2005 shows marked improvement for both AAC and LAME mp3. Even with VBR enabled for Itunes, it remains tied with LAME. Quality was so good all-around, the author declared that this would be the last test at 128k.

Now, I don't know where you're going to get music that's less than 128k out of the Itunes Music Store, and you can bet your ass that 128k LAME mp3s will sound just as good as those 128k AAC tracks.

My personal beef with the 256k file size is that is is TOO BIG. My entire CD collection is encoded using LAME --alt-preset standard, and the average bitrate is under 200k. "Upgrading" to Apple's 256k AAC files would mean more space used up on my portable player. Mp3 doesn't need more than 192k average bitrate to make a 99.99% transparent copy of the original track, and neither does AAC.

AAC or OGG please, but not MP3 - you need twice the bitrate for comparable quality :(

Can we please just put this myth to bed once and for all? I mean Christ, this test was posted right here on this site, years ago: http://www.listening-tests.info/mf-128-1/results.h tm

Scroll to the bottom - the difference in quality is negligible at the same bit rate. It always has been (well, ever since LAME popped up). And given the tradeoff in convenience and industry support, I'd take mp3 any day of the week.