96kbps: The sound clearly lacks definition: as an example, hall's noises are perceived as some breath. The result is comparable to a good FM radio.

112kbps: The sound seems less present and less natural than the original. The definition is a bit less good, the voice is less clear. Attacks are less spontaneous. The spatialization is different from the original recording: the sound seems to be located more far and more lower. There is however a very noticeable improvement compared to 96kbps.

128kbps: Hall's noises are slightly less defined than the original. The violin is a bit less present and the piano attacks a bit less sharp. The voice is nearly identical to the original recording but sibilants are less pronounced. We can notice the same spatialization problem as with the 112kbps's one although there is again a good improvement compared to the 112kbps rate.

160kbps: The sound is more natural than 128kbps but the improvement is less spectacular than during the two preceding stages. The sound is different from the original, without however being possible to tell in what. I think that the difference resides more in what we feel rather than in what we hear.

192kbps: The sound is not felt as the original recording. It is however totally impossible to tell in what.

256kbps: The sound is indiscernible from the original. It is impossible to make the difference with the original recording.

320kbps: The sound is indiscernible from the original. It is impossible to make the difference with the original recording.

CD Audio : The sound of the burned CD is strictly identical the manufactured CD. This test, although it could appear useless, is however necessary so in order to insure that it is impossible that the burning step introduces differences, that would have falsified tests.

It is clear that the 128kbps rate does not produce a quality equal to a CD on a good quality Hi-Fi installation. We can wonder if Fraunhofer's institute has not made an error by limiting its ACM pro codec to 128kbps. However, in the context of a computer use, the quality is equal to the one obtained by reading an Audio CD on a CD-ROM reader. The quality at 128kbps is also indentical to the one obtained with the original CD on a mini or midi Hi-Fi installation, and on the vast majority of Hi-Fi installations in separated elements. The test equipment is indeed better than the majority of Hi-fi installations.

Conclusion : For a computer use, the 128kbps rate produces a quality equal to an audio CD. But in the case of an MP3 use in advanced Hi-Fi, it is necessary to use a 256kbps bit rate to reach an identical result to the CD sound.