Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › mp3 quality
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

mp3 quality - Page 4

post #46 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidMahler View Post
This is so entertaining. I think I'll go get my iPod and listen to the 30 minute "peyote" file :-)
cool so you got that one too
post #47 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by jinx20001 View Post
cool so you got that one too
Yeah but mine is only encoded at 128 so I'm only getting about half the buzz that you are
post #48 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidMahler View Post
Yeah but mine is only encoded at 128 so I'm only getting about half the buzz that you are
na mate i got mine in lossless im lost in the haze of sound after bout 10 mins me
post #49 of 138
I use 192k WMA format, and often convert those original rips to 96k WMA, and the loss of quality is minimal, same as when you reduce a hi-rez digital photo. If you are going larger to smaller, no loss of quality (or not enough to notice), but trying to go in the other direction, not a good idea. You can't stretch a digital photo to a large size (say 8 x 10) if it didn't have enough resolution to be an 8 x 10 in the first place. But you can reduce an 8 x 10 to a 5 x7, and it will still look (sound) good.
post #50 of 138
My mp3 collection consists of mainly 192kpbs mp3's ripped using the iTunes mp3 encoder. For now they sound fine but as hard drives get cheap and 100gb portables become available, going to 320kbps or even lossless becomes a very solid option. Just rip your cd's with a decent encoder at least at 192kbps and when you can hear problems, then you know its time to upgrade.
post #51 of 138
I use a COWON D2 player with Sennheiser PX100 headphones for portable use and notice the difference between MP3 320kbps (i.e., my usual encoding rate) and 128kbps. There's simply a fuller soundstage and more accurate detail in the higher rate encoding, to my ear. Maybe I'm imagining it, though.

Sometimes, 192kpbs does sound ever-so-slightly "off" or less open in certain pieces, but for the most part it's still quite good using LAME for the MP3 encoder.

I have not heard any real differences between lossless FLAC and MP3 at 320kbps on the portable.

- wader
post #52 of 138

Just so we can get technical...





post #53 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by qazwsx View Post




thats an interesting set of graphs,nice one
post #54 of 138
I get CD quality at 128. Seriously! However, I don't use your average encoder.
post #55 of 138
Seriously, mp3 isn't even comparable to CD quality. Even loseless is still a bit par from CD.
post #56 of 138
How is lossless different from CD SQ-wise? Lossless is lossless.
About mp3, I'm sure there is a difference between 320 kbps mp3 and lossless, but personally I can't hear it.
If you can, more power to you.

With that said, the difference is there, but I doubt it's a night and day difference, like when people say lossless is 248294829 times better than MP3, or 192 kbps is "unlistenable", I simply can't believe that.
If you are well tuned to listen for artifacts (which may be more a curse than a blessing, ignorance is bliss as they say) you can probably hear the difference with a revealing rig, but it's nowhere near "unlistenable".
post #57 of 138
OK. CD level is what bitrate is always 1411kbps while loseless maybe 900, 1100 or even 700 varies on source file so it's highly possible to get something missing from wav but very hard to distinguish. (Man, I compared flac to wav and wav sounds better to my 5000$ rig)
post #58 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by WindowsX View Post
OK. CD level is what bitrate is always 1411kbps while loseless maybe 900, 1100 or even 700 varies on source file so it's highly possible to get something missing from wav but very hard to distinguish. (Man, I compared flac to wav and wav sounds better to my 5000$ rig)
You simply have no idea what you're talking about. Try reading up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lossless_data_compression
post #59 of 138
I "DID" read it before and "USED" to believe in loseless until I found the truth behind between loseless and full source with my own ears and my rig. If you try playing loseless file with program that can show bitrate while playing, you'll see why. Maybe our audio listening level is different. I used to be a person who can't tell different between 192 and 320kbps mp3 but now mp3 isn't enough for music I want to listen to. Take your time.
post #60 of 138
I can see how one might hear a difference between lossless and wav if the player/decoder is dropping bits during playback.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › mp3 quality