mp3 quality rate

hurlingdervish · Post by **hurlingdervish** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 8:24 pm

can anyone actually tell the difference between 320 kbs and 192 or even 160. I HIGHLY doubt it. theres been many experiments where people thought they could tell then pointed out the 160 and even 128's as the 320's.

tell me the difference because I just think its a waste of space. as soon as you put it on a cd it wont make a difference

ascii · Post by **ascii** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 8:28 pm

I can...

128 - 320 there's a massive difference
192 - 320 more shine and clarity.
256 - 320 can't tell.

If you put it on a CD it will make a difference, you can't upgrade audio quality!

hurlingdervish · Post by **hurlingdervish** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 8:33 pm

yea there def is a difference between 128 and 320 i know that, 128 is below transparent audio.

but 160 has no artifacts whatsoever

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/do_hig ... es_pay_off

emef · Post by **emef** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 8:34 pm

i dont know about telling the difference at home on normal speakers
but at a club on a very loud good soundsystem its possible to tell the difference
i imagine

hurlingdervish · Post by **hurlingdervish** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 8:35 pm

its the same mentality as people who buy this shit

http://www.ilikejam.org/blog/audio/audiophile.html

sifres · Post by **sifres** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 8:35 pm

I can tell a 128...

Apparently they tested it on some sound engineers one day, nobody could distinguish the 256 and 320 from CD quality, and most of them couldn't even tell it at a 192!

320 is basically all you need, anybody who tells you differently is bluffing...

emef · Post by **emef** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 8:37 pm

i was readin summat on a message board t'other week that 'the kids' are lovin the sound of 128 more than other mp3 bitrates

i dunno if or how much the audio differs by bitrate but i buy my downloads at 320 just to be on the safe side

tunes i make involve heavy use of bitcrushers so they probably sound ok at any mp3 bitrate

mawltea · Post by **mawltea** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 8:41 pm

Sifres wrote:I can tell a 128...

Apparently they tested it on some sound engineers one day, nobody could distinguish the 256 and 320 from CD quality, and most of them couldn't even tell it at a 192!

320 is basically all you need, anybody who tells you differently is bluffing...

I highly doubt that. I took the test they apparently took on the internet, and I could clearly hear a difference on my small monitor speakers. Having said that, I have no extraordinary sense of hearing. As long as you play your music on a decent system, and have a normal sense of hearing, you will definitely hear the difference between say a 192 and a 320.

Here's the test by the way, check for yourself;
http://mp3ornot.com/

hurlingdervish · Post by **hurlingdervish** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 8:56 pm

you only hear a difference because you got your hopes up, if you didnt know it was a higher rate you wouldnt be able to tell. placeboooo

screech · Post by **screech** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:00 pm

I cant tell tbh. Probably not a good thing

lowpass · Post by **lowpass** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:07 pm

wow I thought I'd be able to tell, I have been blasting my ears all day sigh

AFL · Post by **AFL** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:54 pm

depends what you're listening on. On a big system you can definitely tell the dif. On head phones or a small (or even average) sized home system you may not tell.

But, like I said, on a big system it makes a huuuge difference. So please, for the sake of us all, make them 320 if you plan on playing them live.

futures_untold · Post by **futures_untold** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:59 pm

Why not test it yourself?

Bounce some audio at different bit rates and play it to your family or mates. See what they think

cartoon_head · Post by **cartoon_head** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 10:00 pm

Couldnt really tell a huge difference but i got it right. The hat and the part at the end sounded a little brighter on the 320 than the 128 but other than that i was stumped. Think ill stop wasting that extra 30p or so on buying WAVs 320s will do fine.

futures_untold · Post by **futures_untold** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 10:04 pm

If your planning on playiong out, I'd definately buy wavs.

The bigger the system, the more apparent the lower bitrates become.

lojik · Post by **lojik** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 10:16 pm

On my monitors I can easily tell the difference between 192 and 320.

It's in the high end, not very noticable but if you know what your listening for its definately there. This is especially apparant on my own tunes, becuase I know exactly what the high end is supposed to sound like so when it sounds ever so slightly less clean than it should, I pick up on it.

I'd never play anything less than a 320 out on a big system.

cheaper · Post by **cheaper** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 10:20 pm

Basically. 320's will do the job on most systems but not on the bigger ones.

Wav is 1411 kbps...it makes a serious difference

macc · Post by **macc** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 10:41 pm

Lojik wrote: if you know what your listening for its definately there.

I think this is the key point here.

Also, not many people here have said what they are listening with. It's not *just* about big systems... good quality systems (good dac, great monitors/cans) show it up very well. If you can't tell when it is coming out of your laptop speakers, then I wouldn't go cutting your ears off.

Other thing is that it is very very highly material dependent. Ride cymbals, shakers, that sort of thing are a dead give-away. A warbly deep synth... mmm, depends on the encoding rate.

A 128 throws away something like 91% of the information in a 16-bit/44.1 wave

If you can't hear a 128 on full range material - even on laptop speakers - then maybe you should cut your ears off

mp3 quality rate

mp3 quality rate

Who is online