or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › Ads police say 128Kbps AAC is CD quality
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ads police say 128Kbps AAC is CD quality - Page 2

post #16 of 24
It also depends on the encoding algorithms for making the mp3 file...
post #17 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Febs View Post
Have you tried? Using a good encoder?
Dang... you got me there. I will definitely do this though because I'm confident as hell! And I'll eat my words for sure if I'm wrong. I'm only baggin' on 128. Even 160 is a noticable improvement for me, it's just 128 I can't stand. I use iTunes to convert to AAC, and Lame for making MP3's Those qualify as good encoders, no?
post #18 of 24
Try playing 128 AAC files on a high-end system.

Then play a redbook. The difference will be profound


Lol, it all depends on the accuracy of the equipment.
post #19 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by j-dawg View Post
Dang... you got me there. I will definitely do this though because I'm confident as hell! And I'll eat my words for sure if I'm wrong. I'm only baggin' on 128. Even 160 is a noticable improvement for me, it's just 128 I can't stand. I use iTunes to convert to AAC, and Lame for making MP3's Those qualify as good encoders, no?
Yes, those qualify as good encoders as I used the term. For LAME, try using the -V5 setting. Though the resulting files will end up at roughly 128kbps (or slightly higher), the quality is much higher than a 128kbps CBR file.
post #20 of 24
There is a large number of red-faced "audiophiles" who were confident that they could resolve differences in LAME encoded 128 VBR and Lossless only to find (much to their dismay) that when actually put to the test (ABX) they failed miserably.
Peoples ears are rarely as Golden as they like to believe.

Having said all that - I consider around 192kbs to be a personal minimum for "quality control" and will encode much higher if I have a choice.
Probably nothing more than a "placebo" effect in my case with my 46yr old, seen Ted Nugent 5 times, worn out ears!!!
However - The Placebo effect should not be underestimated, IMO.
Mind over matter and all that.
post #21 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Night Surfer View Post
There is a large number of red-faced "audiophiles" who were confident that they could resolve differences in LAME encoded 128 VBR and Lossless only to find (much to their dismay) that when actually put to the test (ABX) they failed miserably.
Peoples ears are rarely as Golden as they like to believe.

Having said all that - I consider around 192kbs to be a personal minimum for "quality control" and will encode much higher if I have a choice.
Probably nothing more than a "placebo" effect in my case with my 46yr old, seen Ted Nugent 5 times, worn out ears!!!
However - The Placebo effect should not be underestimated, IMO.
Mind over matter and all that.
A couple of years ago a friend of mine with me, listened and compared 164 to 192 kbps MP3s and was able to tell difference using his cheap Radio Shack headphones. We both were able to tell the difference with his headphones. He uses a hearing aide on one side. Above 192 with those headphones it became very hard to tell the difference. With better equipment and quieter background it is much easier to here those much slighter differences above 196. I encode my MP3s at max VBR which averages around 230 kbps and they are fine with me with my portable equipment. 192 today, using my current setup, sound a bit flat to me compared with the higher rates. I am 56 years old and my hearing is good to 14kHz plus. Above 15kHz it gets worst fast.
post #22 of 24
The music that is being used to test is a huge factor, I believe.
My Kenwood can display the format/bitrate of whatever song it is playing.
I will often play "guess the bitrate" while listening.
I have noticed that when I am overestimating the lower bitrate material it happens to be music that is mastered well (Coldplay for example).
Poorly mastered music (Red Hot Chili Peppers for example) seems to be much easier to resolve differences in bitrates.
post #23 of 24
I don't think that bitrate is as easy to guess when used portably. In addition I suspect that the Nokia tests were done using crap headphones, and that perhaps their phone might not be the best source.

Though to be honest 128kbps AAC doesn't sound THAT bad... were we not all audiophiles looking for perfection of sound we probably wouldn't notice be bothered by the SQ artifacts all that much (even less so when on the go through crap headphones).

I could tell the difference between 192kbps WMA, 128kbps AAC and the CD with my Zune's original headphones... though I think that you'd have to listen much harder with anything above 192kbps to find the nuanced difference through everyday equipment.
post #24 of 24
I know this is an old topic but I would argue that most people can tell the difference between a 128 file and CD playback. My wife can and that's saying something. A friend had spent time and effort researching and playing with various file sizes before settling on 320 and he claimed vociferously that my expensive hifi gear was a waste of money, bringing no additional sonic benefit. We arranged a listening evening with his files fed into my hifi and we A/B switched tracks between his files and CD replay. It was night and day different and he was crestfallen, genuinely. I was happy that he could hear the difference and that he could admit to being wrong but he did go out and invest in better kit? No. Did he redo all his files as lossless? No. Despite him knowing the sound was not as good, he could live with it and it was "good enough" for him in the final analysis. He argued that his playback system wasn't as revealing as mine and therefore would disguise the missing music. He had a point of course and this again comes back to the music being "good enough".
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Portable Source Gear
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › Ads police say 128Kbps AAC is CD quality