How to check quality of MP3 file

I have been searching for a long time for tools checking the real quality of MP3 files. Many tools will just base their assumptions on the bitrate and encoder type alone (i.e. EncSpot). I think that’s rather insufficient. Though all knowledge on compression artifacts exists and computer programmer’s are out there making incredible stuff, all of the amazing audio analyzing on mpeg has to be done by ears…

Let’s see how we can at least do “something” to get a definite answer to the question: “Is this a bad file” without having to put our ears to the test. Mind though that it is in many ways like a cheap medical test where (in this case) a NO is 100% accurate, but a YES is just a way of saying: I’m not sure… let’s do more testing.

But first, an introduction.

With MP3 a revolution was born: Music became “portable”. But there’s a catch. MP3 is a lossy compression and will sacrifice quality for size. To do this without being noticed too much, MP3 uses a technique based on Psychoacoustics, where it filters out quite frequencies that are adjacent to loud frequencies. Scientists noticed that our ears mask those frequencies (we can’t hear them), so getting rid of these frequencies should go unnoticed. This way the encoder doesn’t have to “encode” those inaudible frequencies and thus can preserve a lot of space (10:1 is no exception). To preserve even more space (20:1) and so use lower bitrate, the encoder will filter out more frequencies. At some point that process becomes noticeable. That’s why very low bitrate MP3 sounds so horrible. ( This description is far from complete. ) If you want to know more about psychoacoustics, read this Wikipedia article..

MP3’s come in different qualities, i.e. how much compression is applied. Usually the compression correlates to the amount of kb/s (kilobits per second) is used to store and to reproduce the music. The more kb/s are available to store sounds, the better the quality can be, because the encoder can leave more of the quieter frequencies intact. And while this is “technically” sound, I’m going to prove to you that kb/s alone is far from a trustworthy indication of quality.

Digital MP3 music comes in different “qualities”, depending on how “lossy” the compression is. Let me list a few of them in order of “sounds horrible (like a cellphone)” to “sounds like the real thing”:

  1. 48 kb/s – This amount of compression sounds like your average AM portable radio and are mainly used to deliver speech.
  2. 96 kb/s – This sounds like a very poor quality Youtube video. This compression is often used to broadcast speech and music to mobile devices on GPRS (edge) or 3G, like your iPhone.
  3. 128 kb/s – This sounds acceptable to most people, but most (if not every) audiophile will notice the loss in quality without comparing it to the source. It’s is the most used compression for (private) MP3 music files on the internet and is mainly spread by filesharing, because it’s the best trade-of between size and quality.
  4. 192 kb/s – This sounds like CD quality to most people. Audiophiles will notice a slight degradation in quality, but only when comparing it to the source (so called A/B tests). It’s less portable, because it’s bigger and is better known as a better quality illegal download.
  5. 320 kb/s – This is the closest you can get to CD quality and still be compatible with most portable players. Audiophiles claim they can hear the difference, but it’s like tasting wine… (you know what I mean). This compression is used on many (legal) music download sites.
  6. 640 kb/s – Like twice as good as the best… (can that be?). Sadly some players won’t keep up with the amount of bits per second, or because the hard- and/or software won’t allow it.

Now, besides MP3 (which is MPEG 1 layer 3) there are many other lossy compression techniques out there, like mp2 (MPEG 2 layer 1 used by digital satellite), ogg, mwa and aac. AAC is known as the successor to MP3 and can achieve much better quality than at the same bitrate, through better use of the psychoacoustic schemes. An AAC file of 96 kb/s sounds like a 192kb/s MP3 file (debatable). AAC at 256 kb/s is widely used by iTunes and sounds awesome (very little trade-off between quality and compression, you get both).

Just for the record, there are some loss-less compression technique out there, like FLAC. These techniques will reduce the size of CD quality music without discarding any frequencies. The reproduction of this compressed file will be bit-by-bit identical to the source. Flac is mainly used for archiving CD collections and can achieve a considerable reduction in filesize.

After this lengthy, but still absolutely incomplete introduction, NOW ON TO THE MAIN DISCUSSION.

How to check the REAL quality

As we discussed above: 320 kb/s sounds better than 128 kb/s. Given this knowledge, some people make a habit of re-encoding bad 128 kb/s source material into 320 kb/s files (or even FLAC!!). In doing so, they incorrectly assume the quality will improve. It doesn’t, because once a music-file is compressed to 128 kb/s, the information removed to reduce size is lost forever. Nothing will ever recover what was lost. It’s like an image resized from 1000×1000 pixels to 100×100 pixels and then back to 1000×1000. The result will be a 90% loss of all information and the image will be blurry. There is no way anyone can sharpen it up again so that it contains the same details as the original 1000×1000 image.

Sadly, for whatever reason, there are 320 kb/s files out there that are in fact 128 kb/s MP3’s that have been upscaled somehow. But because 128 kb/s sounds pretty good as it is, it can be tricky to hear whether or not the file has been tampered with. There is (afaik) NO software out there that will do anything more then read the headers en look at the bits per second to tell you what’s good or not. According to audiophiles “listening” is the only way to tell if a file is good or bad, and that’s it. I will show you however, that a “bad” or “fraud” mp3 can be uncovered just by looking at it’s spectrum and without waking the neighbors.

The analysis is based on the frequency spectrum of the sound in the MP3 file. You can visualize this in many audio editors like Audition. We will be looking for giveaway features of most (if not all) MP3 encoders, i.e: the cut off frequency at 15 (or) 16 khz and clipping. Let’s look at some pictures:


The above image shows the spectral analysis of a CD quality file. The way it works is quite simple: The X axis is time, the Y axis is frequency and the illumination is the volume. Bright yellow means strong frequencies, red is weaker and black is none. This graph shows that all frequencies between 0 Hz en 20.000 Hz are very well present. Now, let’s look at a 128 kb/s compression of the same file:


Notice the difference in this 128 kb/s compressed file. All frequencies above 15,8 khz are gone (black). That’s because most MP3 encoders apply a “filter” on the sound before compressing it. Yes… This has absolutely nothing to do with psychoacoustics, but is just a rude filter that almost all encoders use. The cut-off frequency is thereby a strong indicator of the original bitrate. Most encoders cut off at 16 kHz for 128 kb/s to 8 kHz for 64 kb/s. Once these filters have been applied, the filtered-out frequencies are lost and cannot ever be recovered.

Note the small spikes that go up all the way to 22 khz. These are points where the music “clippes”. Clipping happens when the waveform is bigger that the container and is flattened at the top, it will produce strong harmonic distortion or overmodulation. Read more about clipping.


Above image: Example of clipping.

Once we saved the file again in MP3 320 kb/s the data previously lost in converting it to 128 kb/s is still missing. Consequently “upgrading” our file to 320 kb/s did not improve quality at all it only made the file almost 3 times as big. ( from 3,97 Mbyte to 9,93 Mbyte ).


Many so called CD quality 320 kb/s downloads are ripoffs. Let’s take a look at one of these wonderful 320 kb/s downloads that are in fact upgraded (in television midst they speak of upscaling) low quality MP3’s.


Now, this is quite an interesting one. Notice how the cutoff frequency seems to be there, but not quite “cutting off”… This file looks like it was encoded to 128 kb/s but with the cutoff filter disabled. As you can see the encoder tries to encode the high frequencies when they are really strong (hi hats + percussion), but eventually the encoder is loosing a lot of the information. Typically this will look like a largely blank upper frequencies area with brief spikes of high frequencies, strongly reduced in resolution.

I took the original to compare: The original (full bandwidth) file is very different from the (fake) 320 kb/s file. So what’s going on here?



Actually during my investigation I stumbled upon some annoying properties of Fraunhofer’s MP3 encoder. It seems that even with cutoff filter disabled (or set to 22kHz), the 320kb/s file (from the same original source as the image above) is somewhat filtered. There is a noticable “cutoff” line that isn’t present in the original file. Though the filtered 128 kb/s file will look flattened, this one still has some high frequencies in it. This file is bad, that’s for sure, but it’s not because of upscaling… !!!


This example above shows the same file, once in 320 kb/s unfiltered (left) and 128 kb/s unfiltered (right). Notice that their is some difference. The 320 file is probably better, but still not what we came to suspect from 320 kb/s files.


This is a comparison between the original and LAME (3.8). There is some degree of graining, but the overall frequency response seems better (wider) than FhG.

You can always spot a bad quality 320 kb/s MP3 by looking at the spectrum analyzer, but you can only be sure of the cause of the degradation when you see a very obvious 16khz (or less) cutoff. When the cutoff is overshooting, matters get more complicated. It can be a 128 kb/s source that was rendered without the filter, like we tried or it could be an original 320 kb/s file that was rendered with a bad encoder. In this case (to my surprise) the Fraunhofer encoder did not perform as expected, while the LAME encoder was quite good, although there is a little change in graininess between the original and the LAME 320kb/s encoded file.

Anyway. I hope I have been of any assistance doing these little tests today. :-)

26 thoughts on “How to check quality of MP3 file

  1. Denes

    This article is right about what I’m thinking nowadays. So now I can start here to discover more knowledge, thank you :)
    As I see the Aqua works only when you have the original, uncompressed file to compare with the compressed track.
    If anybody knows a simple, free solution, please tell us!

  2. Jools


    It shouldn’t be hard to make such a tool, considering this blog already laid out all the important parameters to analyse. I hope someone will make such a tool, or else we will all have to switch to Apple’s iCloud.

  3. Elsa

    Thanks for the clear way of explaining! I try to learn a bit about how to improve the quality of my music collection and in most articles I get lost within a minute in the (for me) technical abracadabra. But you kept me engaged through the whole article. Well done!

  4. walter Post author

    Thanks for all the comments.
    I’ve taken up C# programming, maybe some day I’ll device a tool that does a fair assessment of “quality”. :-)

  5. Jeremy

    Now what program did you actually use in this article to compare the songs? Will any old spectrum analyzer do? In the end, is it actually possible to rip a good quality sound file from youtube? And finally I was wondering if you could analyze an upload of mine to youtube because I use a site called to upload songs to youtube along with a picture, I can clearly see the picture loses quality but the sound files sound fine at the 480p that it uploads at.

  6. Jeremy

    And that’s at 480p? So that’s about 128kbps? And according to Wikipedia that’s the max 480p can host! Good, means I’m not losing anything using mp32tube =)
    Can you analyze this one?
    This guy only uploads in 360p but his uploads always sound GLORIOUS.
    Do you have a recommendation for a video editor/spectrum analyzer? (Feel free to e-mail me, I don’t want to clutter this page with comments)

  7. George

    There is a great difference between low- and high quality mp3’s (128 vs 320). Difficult to detect with only headphones, but noticeable when you compare them on a proper sound-system.

  8. Pingback: Listening Tests | MaciekOnSound

  9. Steve

    You do realize people can’t hear frequencies above 16KHz, right? There’s nothing “rude” about that filter. You can safely delete all frequencies at 16KHz and above, and no one will ever notice.

    1. Anonymous

      Steve, if you ever heard a DJ play a 128 mp3 on a bug sound system you’ll know that it doesnt matter what siece might say, it just sounds crap!

  10. S Rahul Bose

    Very helpful. Apart from spectrum analysis, is there a synthetic test to determine if an mp3 file has been upscaled from 128 kbps to 320 kbps.

  11. Sherwin Maxawow

    I have two different rips of Bryan Adams song “Everything I Do (I Do It For You)”…..each one ripped from different compilation CD Albums (of which I OWN the original copies of) and converted to 320kbps CBR Mp3 format.

    They both look almost identical, except that the lines on one reach up a little higher up than the other one. The higher one almost reaches the 22 kHz line, where as the other song’s image is just barely shy of the 20 kHz line.

    Since I havent had time to study your lesson closely YET…… can you tell me simply if the one with the HIGHER lines is the better or the HIGHER QUALITY mp3 copy…. or what???

    And thank you very much for the wisdom you are sharing. I will learn all I can later… WHEN I CAN.

    PS. WHY does TIME have to be such a LIMITED resource? : )

      1. mjb

        Generally, you can’t tell the sound quality by looking at graphs. What looks like a big deal in a graph is not necessarily important to our ears at all. Blind testing (ABX) is the only way to know. When dealing with perceptual codecs, transparency (inability to discern a difference) is the definition of maximum quality; if you can’t reliably tell the difference, then neither choice is better than the other.

        You are also not taking a couple of things into account. MP3 has a design feature/flaw where the 16+ kHz range can’t be preserved as well as the lower frequencies; it’s noisier. The bitrate is also constrained. These factors create a tradeoff: when the encoder is forced to deal with the content of upper extremes (mostly atonal noise which may not even be audible), valuable bits must be taken from the lower frequencies, where our ears are much more sensitive. It is presumptuous to say that better sound quality results from this. It’s more sensible to assume that encoder has been authored to choose an ideal cutoff for a given bitrate or target quality level, and that you shouldn’t be messing with it in a naïve effort to make sexier spectrograms.

        Some people simply can’t hear above 16 kHz, so they benefit from not having the encoder waste bits on those frequencies. Many of us can hear a little above 16 kHz, but not all the way 20, even under ideal conditions. So for us, an ~18 kHz cutoff can put the audio at less risk, quality-wise, than a higher one. However, I wouldn’t want to force the encoder to use 18 when its algorithms have determined that better quality is obtained at 16; it knows its limits better than I do.

        Even when we hear no difference in the lower bands, and we can hear differences in the extreme high end, a file that’s missing some or all of the extreme high end isn’t necessarily “lower quality” to our ears—people are just as apt to feel that the one that’s less noisy sounds better…and in those upper bands, that’s mostly all there is: background hiss and the upper harmonics of noisy percussion.

        1. walter Post author

          True. But the intent was to find upscaled MP3. For example, when you download a FLAC file, who’s to say it isn’t just an MP3 that someone has repackaged in FLAC. Also if you download 320K mp3 files. Nothing in the meta data tells you anything. The Frequency graph can bring artifacts to the surface that are caused by lossy algorithms and thus suits fine to “quickly” assert if a file is up-scaled or not.

  12. audiotester


    Thought to share some objective tests I have made using Sevana AQuA mentioned above:

    MP3_Torture_Test.wav vs. MP3_Torture_Test-128kbps.wav
    Voice Quality assessment using Aqua

    Processing MP3_Torture_Test.wav vs. MP3_Torture_Test_320kbps_mp3.wav
    Voice Quality assessment using Aqua

    And now with “music option on”

    MP3_Torture_Test.wav vs. MP3_Torture_Test-128kbps.wav
    Voice Quality assessment using Aqua

    Processing MP3_Torture_Test.wav vs. MP3_Torture_Test_320kbps_mp3.wav
    Voice Quality assessment using Aqua

    Clearly this clip has no need to be saved with 320kbps, but then I wanted to try it with Vorbis OGG:

    By default OGG compression gives

    Voice Quality assessment using Aqua

    Quite high quality actually… but let’s try OGG with fixed bitrate of 128

    Voice Quality assessment using Aqua

    Still the same… and now with 48kbps to just try…

    Voice Quality assessment using Aqua

    It’s almost the same… 48kbps OGG file is 3 times smaller than 128kbps OGG file and 3 times smaller than MP3 128kpbs file…

    Conclusion: Sevana AQuA is an interesting tool…

  13. Pingback: Listening Tests | MaciekOnSound

  14. Audiophile

    Thank you for the info on your blog. I found an app which might do just what your looking for. I am testing it right now. The Spectrum Analysis feature will cost a few bucks. So I am wondering if that’s a good deal? Here is the info:

  15. Rylore

    Perhaps someone would be willing to provide an answer to a dilemma I recently encountered. I rip ALL my music directly from CD at 320kbps using Windows Media Player (Windows 7) set to the highest audio quality possible. However, I noticed that when using Spek to analyze it, EVERY file pretty much cuts off at 16kHz, making it appear to be an upscaled 128kbps file. If it’s true that frequency range can determine bitrate, it appears that WMP rips files with a 128kbps quality and a 320kbps file size. Why do WMP files appear this way? Why do they appear to be upscaled 128kbps files when they are clearly ripped at 320kbps settings? Nothing I hate worse than a damned program making me out to look like a liar when offering 320kbps files.

    1. Rylore

      Apparently Windows Media Player has been using Fraunhofer’s MP3 encoder since version 10, which explains why my 320kbps rips look like they are 128kbps upscales. Thank you, Microsoft, for yet another crappy program!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code class="" title="" data-url=""> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> <pre class="" title="" data-url=""> <span class="" title="" data-url="">

Bad Behavior has blocked 6225 access attempts in the last 7 days.