So you think you can tell the difference between compressed MP3's? Take the test (http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/2007/11/casual_fridays_are_all_mp3s_eq.php), take this test hosted by cognitive daily (http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/2007/11/casual_fridays_are_all_mp3s_eq.php), results to be posted.

I did the test first with my "computer speakers", B&W CM1s and then my headphones, Beyerdynamic DT 880s.

With my speakers, I could tell what I thought to be the 64kbps vs the others, but it was harder to pick the 256 vs the 128. I was reasonably confident with my choices. What I thought to be the 256 just seemed slightly more vivid, real and dimensional, where as the others felt a little flattened somehow. I don't want to say what my choices were, as not to sway anyone else if they take the test after reading this (is the same, or random each time?).

Using my headphones was another story. The differences were VERY apparent, especially with the 64 vs the 256, where with the lower quality version, there were whole instruments that I couldn't hear. It was closer between the 128 and 256, but what I thought was the 256 seemed sharper and more real, with more separation between sounds. I'm very/pretty confident with that one.

But they don't even tell you what your results are at the end! I want to know!! :mad:

edit: Don't know if it made a difference or not, but with my speakers I was not seated in the "optimal" position, in between them. I was at my computer desk, which is along the wall perpendicular to the wall the speakers are against. So, I was sitting a few feet directly in front of the left speaker. Maybe the differences would have been clearer if I was in the "sweet spot", or maybe not.

I found with the Copeland piece it was very difficult to determine between 128 and 256 because I am unfamiliar with those intruments. Whereas with the Santana song it was much easier, maybe because I own the album. I did the test listening to Logitech Z-5300e's which have a very poor lower midrange and almost no output in the top half of the top octave and this output is very directional because of beaming.

Far from ideal speakers or listening condition seeing as the power supply in my computer averages around 50 dB at my LP and these logitechs sound pretty compressed after 85-90 dB.

can't tell any difference at all with my desktop computer speakers.

and i seriously hate the copland piece cos its a lot of noise.

It's too bad they didn't tell us how we did!

I did some tests myself when I rip my CDs on hard disk. I know the limits of my internal soundcard and the (altough good) Tannoy Reveals. Above 192kbit is difficult to hear a difference with a (good) computer setup like mine. But the OS (XP vs Vista) also make a difference. If you play a well encoded 128bit mp3 with foobar/ASIO or with XXhighend it likely will sound to your ears like a 256bit mp3.

So I took this test. The first one was very easy to find the higher quality encoding, on the second one much difficult because i used speakers and not headphones and they recommend the latter. Anyway, the test showed that my ears DO NOT like the way my pc sounds.

I'm pretty sure I was able to differentiate between the three.

The lowest quality bitrate was obvious. The two others were difficult. What I did was focus on the high end of the cymbals. You can usually hear more artifacts with high compression in the cymbals.

So I took this test. The first one was very easy to find the higher quality encoding, on the second one much difficult because i used speakers and not headphones and they recommend the latter.

IMO, all this test, irregardless of results, will probably shows that most people can't tell the difference between different bit rates using their computer speaker or came-with-the-package headphones.

But it would be only much more interesting to poll a group of people with actual audiophile speakers/headphones.

with my speakers, I was able to easily discern the 64kbps encode, and after listening to the other two 3 times each, i was able to discern the differences between them. 320kbps -> Wav/Flac/ape I cannot do statistically.

irregardless

You mean regardless (http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000224.htm). Sorry, pet peeve.


But it would be only much more interesting to poll a group of people with actual audiophile speakers/headphones.

Like I said. It was quite obvious with my DT 880s. Harder, but still noticeable with my CM1s.

The results should be posted soon, hopefully they will break out the groups. I think the point of this is you can't really tell the difference with background noise and crappy speakers, which is why most people are fine with mp3s on their ipods/mp3 players with earbuds, most people don't really listen to music these days.

found it harder with copelands piece, but santana was much easier. Picked the lowest bitrate first time, but after listening to the other two repeated times, I believe I picked the higher one. Soon find out.

Folks, If you haven't seen the results of the test here they are:
http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/2007/11/few_listeners_can_distinguish.php

Cool test. I think I could hear the difference in all three bitrates. I do use high quality speakers on my computer.