Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › difference between 192 kbps and 320..
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

difference between 192 kbps and 320..

post #1 of 36
Thread Starter 
ok, i notice this topic has already been discussed many times, but there are way too many threads to search and sort out..

but is there a big difference between 192 and 320? i'm a little concerned because the e500PTH is coming my way.
post #2 of 36
If you read the other ones carefully, you may have stumbled across the verdict: Nobody can tell you, if YOU hear the difference. You have to find it out yourself....
post #3 of 36
About 60%...
If the increased bitrate/file size is worth it is all up to you to decide.
post #4 of 36
To my ears... nothing
post #5 of 36
Thread Starter 
i guess i'll find out by next week
post #6 of 36
I find it depends on the music. With some tunes it's glaringly obvious to me and with others I have a hard time telling, and sometimes can't.
post #7 of 36
I can tell the difference about 50% of the time. I guess it also depends the recording itself of the track.
post #8 of 36
If you are talking about LAME-V2 (VBR averaging around 192 kbps) and 320 then believe me... it is unlikely in the extreme that you would ever be able to tell them apart in a blind test.
post #9 of 36
If the music is Busy, e.g. Rock/Indie, whatever, there is usually a big enough difference imo.

Usually there is subtle differences in the detail of the treble.
post #10 of 36
I should add that if you want to go for high quality mp3, you should do LAME -V0 over constant 320kbps.
post #11 of 36
If there's one thing I learned in all of this higher bitrate game, it's that 320kps doesn't mean squat if you have a bad rip or bad original recording. So I wouldn't put too much faith in high bit rates. A good rip of a bad recording is still going to sound like crap.
post #12 of 36
Thread Starter 
the killers music sounded terrible with my e4c.. i think maybe it wasn't recorded too well? it's their hot fuss album.
post #13 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by dohdough View Post
If there's one thing I learned in all of this higher bitrate game, it's that 320kps doesn't mean squat if you have a bad rip or bad original recording. So I wouldn't put too much faith in high bit rates. A good rip of a bad recording is still going to sound like crap.
That's a pretty useless comment, I think. The object is to find the setting that best represents the recording, not to find the best recording.

Listen to music, not sound.
post #14 of 36
Listen for yourself, use foobar and do an ABX test between 320 and 192, assuming you have the lossless file that you can transcode from.
I think that hearing is very specific for each person, just like how vision is.
Like if you were to ask to a group of people "can you read that other there?" 15 meters ahead, everyone is going to give you a different answer.

Hearing is the same, it's just that hearing is not as prominent compared to vision, where bad vision usually requires aids like glasses, contacts and surgery, hearing does not require such unless you have a severe case of hearing loss or a disorder.
And besides that, some people just have a "knack" for hearing the subtle nuances in music, experience aside.

Personally I'm in the camp where I can hear some difference between 128 kbps and lossless on songs that I'm familiar with, 192+ is unsure for me, very song dependant, and the higher it goes, the finer the line (as it should be).
I think that the mp3 encoders nowadays are very good, even 128 kbps files are very much listenable.
But even so, I'm not gonna say that there is no difference between 192 kbps and lossless.
To go back to the earlier analogy, that's like having a near-sighted guy doing an eye test; just because he scores bad doesn't mean everyone else will.

Your ears, your hearing, so form your own opinion about it.

My €0.02.
post #15 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by dohdough View Post
If there's one thing I learned in all of this higher bitrate game, it's that 320kps doesn't mean squat if you have a bad rip or bad original recording. So I wouldn't put too much faith in high bit rates. A good rip of a bad recording is still going to sound like crap.
Yes, but if you can't tell the difference between a 320kbps and a 192kbps of a bad recording, then having the 192kbps will use less of your available storage capacity.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Portable Source Gear
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › difference between 192 kbps and 320..