MP3 File Comparison Tool

[gonwk]

Hi folks,

I was wondering if any of you have used or know of a "Freeware" preferably that I can put two MP3 files, of course the same song, and see if there is much difference between the 256Kbps and the 320Kbps one ... Quality wise.

I mean a software that can take the Guessing game out of the equation, and do away with the fact that something might be more clear to me and not to you and so forth.

Thanks,

G!

[katzdvd]

Hi gonwk,

Don't know if this is what you are looking for exactly, but I like to use mp3 gain for normalizing files. I am not sure about a comparison tool. but I know that this is a handy one to have around!


Cheers,
katz

[MilesAhead]

Also Audacity may show a wave form with audio info. I haven't used it in a long time but it's free. I think you can download from videohelp.com

[gonwk]

Hi Katz and Miles,

THANKS!

G!

[katzdvd]

256Kbps and the 320Kbps

I suppose you can see the difference in frequency response, etc., with software, but I have heard/watched several tech shows where they all agree that this is a moot point. Most say that the human ear cannot discern quality at high bit rates like that.

In other words, I am not sure if I can tell the difference if a song is encoded at say 128, 192, 256 & so on. (all other factors being equal?) Below 128, I believe you can tell a difference. I have spoken word files that are encoded down to 16 kbps, and that is pushing it for audiobooks, but for music that would obviously sound terrible!

Just wanted to add some more info.

[MilesAhead]

Just from my experience listening to jazz, I'd say that 128 sounds kind of flat, 160 is sort of getting there, but for modern recorded music(esp. jazz where the musicians usually insist on some care taken during recording) 192 or higher usually is excellent. With 1960s jazz and earlier I try to get 256 or 320 if possible.

I tried some jazz encoded with .wma @192 and .mp3 @320 and I couldn't tell the difference. I haven't done any exhaustive studies but my ear tells me, if you have stuff that can play .wma well, and want to save some storage space, try .wma format.

[gonwk]

Hey Guys,

THANKS for the additional info ... YOU Folks are the BEST!

@ Miles ... you know ... I think you might be right on the Jazz music since there is more distinctive separation of the instruments.

Appreciate the additional feedback Katz & Miles!

G!

[atifsh]

128 mp3 and 320 mp3 is big difference...
192 and 256 u need good set of amplifier / speakers
256 and 320 u need good set of ears.

[gonwk]

128 mp3 and 320 mp3 is big difference...
192 and 256 u need good set of amplifier / speakers
256 and 320 u need good set of ears.

Yo atifsh,

Following Q's ... the comparison for "Average" person with "NORMAL" hearing ...

Q1: What about 128 mp3 and 160 mp3s? Can you tell the difference?

Q2: What about 160 mp3 and 192 mp3s? Can you tell the difference?

Thanks,

G!

[atifsh]

Q1:

What about 128 mp3 and 160 mp3s? Can you tell the difference?

yeah file sizes would be different well maybe u get better highs with 160

Q2: What about 160 mp3 and 192 mp3s? Can you tell the difference?

very unlikly, why dont u try urself.

[gonwk]

very unlikly, why dont u try urself.

Hi atifsh,

Yes, I have been doing that myself ... is just I wanted to see what everyone else experience has been ... you know our Digital Digest Audiophile experts & enthusiasts.

THANKS,

G!