![160 kbps vs 320 kbps 160 kbps vs 320 kbps](https://img.auctiva.com/imgdata/1/7/0/0/4/3/4/webimg/576233726_o.jpg)
I'm talking absolutely wafer thin here.Īnyway, 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. And the 192kbps VBR results have a barely statistically significant difference versus the raw CD audio at the 95% confidence level.
160 KBPS VS 320 KBPS 320KBPS
Beyond that, as you'd expect, nobody can hear the difference between a 320kbps CBR audio file and the CD. 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. 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. 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. It's kind of an outlier here for no good reason, so we have to almost throw it out. I think it's got to be bias from appearing first in the list of audio samples. Give us VBR at an average bitrate higher than 128kbps, or give us death!īut 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. So I guess we can consider this yet another blind listening test proving that point. I've maintained for a long, long time that typical 128kbps MP3s are not acceptable quality.
160 KBPS VS 320 KBPS DOWNLOAD
(If you'd like to perform more detailed statistical analysis, download the Excel 2010 spreadsheet with all the data and have at it.)Įven 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. The summary statistics for the 3,512 data points: Remember each sample was ranked in a simple web form from 1 to 5, where 1 is worst quality, and 5 is highest quality. At least you can independently verify that I wasn't tricking anyone in this experiment each sample was indeed different, and the bitrates are what I said they were.īut you guys and gals wouldn't do that, because you aren't dirty, filthy cheaters, right? Of course not. It's a small difference in absolute file size, but it's enough to sort exactly with quality. The higher the bitrate, apparently, the less compressible the audio files are with lossless FLAC compression. I belatedly realized after creating this experiment that there was an easy way to cheat. You guys are troopers, taking one in the ear for the team in the name of science. Not bad at all! I mean, considering I made everyone listen to what some people consider to be one of the bestworst "rock" songs of all time. Of those listeners, 3,512 went on to contribute results.
![160 kbps vs 320 kbps 160 kbps vs 320 kbps](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/RCWzuSOW0cI/maxresdefault.jpg)
Still, it's encouraging to note that the last two files were both clicked about 5.5k times for those that toughed their way out to the very end. Concluding the Great MP3 Bitrate ExperimentĪnd now for the dramatic conclusion to The Great MP3 Bitrate Experiment you've all been waiting for! The actual bitrates of each audio sample are revealed below, along with how many times each was clicked per the goo.gl URL shortener stats between Thursday, June 21st and Tuesday, June 26th.ĭuring that six day period, my overall Amazon CloudFront and S3 bill for these downloaded audio samples was $103.72 for 800 GB of data, across 200k requests.īased on the raw click stats, it looks like a bunch of folks clicked on the first and second files, then lost interest.