or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › 192 kbs and 320 kbs, is there really a difference?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

192 kbs and 320 kbs, is there really a difference? - Page 11

post #151 of 372

Bitrate. It sure does make a difference

I started at 192. I imported 200 cds. Thought it was great. I then learned that cd quality was 320. I was impressed with the sound. I re imported all those cds and was impressed. Then I learned about lossless(990). I was now hearing things that I had no idea was on the recording. I have a lot of sound equiptment and I own 4 Imods. I believe that better quality equiptment is necessary to reveal all the improvements. Thats cans, cables, amps and mods. Two years ago I discovered that cds are delivered with a coating that is a dry lubricant that is necessary in manufacturing. It is a pretty thick coating. It also has a effect on the music. The coating is so thick that when I buy used cds that have noticeable surface scratches and I remove the coating the scratches disappear. You would think you would have to polish them off but they were in the protective coating. When this coating is removed the sound improves in a unreal way. I now refer to music quality with the coating intact as mud. If you are now listening to cds with this coating you are in for a big correct that, huge surprise. There are two easy ways to remove this coating. Polishing it in a scratch removal machine like a JFJ easy pro(i own one, pain in the butt) or use Xtreme Cables Online Store products. I have done 500+ cds with this product and every audiophile and plain music enthusiast that has A/B this process has a jaw drop. You cannot hear the real sound that is on a cd without this step. There are many other things that can be done to improve SQ but this is a mandatory step. The coating keeps the laser from reading all the info fast enough and you are actually listening to 30 to 50 % error correction. Think of it this way, if you are looking at a oil painting with sun glasses on and then you take the glasses off. You will see more. 2 to 10 K cd players have technology that helps correct this problem but is a waste of money if you don't have it. I don't care if you are listening on a $100 boom box or a $10k accuphase you will be blown away at the improvement. Now when this improvement is done do some comparisons in bit rate and you will not settle for mud. You will pick the higher rate. I have about 1200 songs on my 80gig imod and it is maxed out and people are blown away by how revealing the sound is. The optical enhancer works well also. This is one product you won't return for your money back.
post #152 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSatelliteGuy View Post
Two years ago I discovered that cds are delivered with a coating that is a dry lubricant that is necessary in manufacturing. It is a pretty thick coating. It also has a effect on the music.
Can you point to a citation for this, I have never heard of this, and evidence that it does affect the laser reading the CD - not anecdote and not audio sales chatter please. Some before and after measurements or level matched blind listening tests, thanks.


Quote:
The coating keeps the laser from reading all the info fast enough and you are actually listening to 30 to 50 % error correction.
Can you provide some evidence for this extraordinary claim ?. How are you measuring the error correction rate ?


Quote:
2 to 10 K cd players have technology that helps correct this problem
Sorry, what technology apart from the robust error correction that is fundamental to all CD playback do these uber players have ?. Error rate is pretty much a non issue in CD playback.
post #153 of 372
haha this will never end....

i also here that if you break your CD into exactly 51 (equal) pieces and glue them back together you will get a sound that is actually the sound that the artist and or band had in mind when they were ABOUT to record the album...
post #154 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Figlio Perduto View Post
haha this will never end....

i also here that if you break your CD into exactly 51 (equal) pieces and glue them back together you will get a sound that is actually the sound that the artist and or band had in mind when they were ABOUT to record the album...
lmao

Not sure if this has been posted before but this paper was very interesting. The authors find a large difference in brain activity (EEG and PET) between music with ultrasonic content vs music without ultrasonic content. This makes me really curious to listen to a good SACD or DVD-a system. Although it would need to be a speaker system, because the authors suggest that the ultrasound perception mechanism may not be through the ears (similar to the way low frequency can be perceived via bone conduction).

If true, this means that comparing 320kbps vs lossless CD audio would be like trying to tell which of two muddy (but slightly differently muddy) windows were muddier. I'd be curious to know if someone has compared 320kbps vs SACD/DVD-a.

Also, the authors show that the brain activity lags behind the stimulus by tens of seconds, which explains why previous studies failed to show that people could hear it (the sample length for a typical ABX test tend to be 30 seconds or less).
post #155 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by scompton View Post
My library almost fills my 160GB iPod at 128kbps. The argument that storage is essentially unlimited is a bogus argument for some. I'm slowly reripping my CDs to lossless for an archive, but it will never be on my iPod that way. Before I'm finished, I hope 2TB disks are available.

iPods don't really like the large files anyway.
128kbs? Eeek. Do yourself a favor, downsize collection, upgrade sample rate. I dont hear that much difference between 190kbs & 320kbs, but I sure as hell can pick out a 128kbs mp3.
post #156 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSatelliteGuy View Post
There are two easy ways to remove this coating. Polishing it in a scratch removal machine like a JFJ easy pro(i own one, pain in the butt) or use Xtreme Cables Online Store products. I have done 500+ cds with this product and every audiophile and plain music enthusiast that has A/B this process has a jaw drop. You cannot hear the real sound that is on a cd without this step. ... The optical enhancer works well also. This is one product you won't return for your money back.
Er, right.
post #157 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSatelliteGuy View Post
I started at 192. I imported 200 cds. Thought it was great. I then learned that cd quality was 320. I was impressed with the sound. I re imported all those cds and was impressed. Then I learned about lossless(990). I was now hearing things that I had no idea was on the recording. I have a lot of sound equiptment and I own 4 Imods. I believe that better quality equiptment is necessary to reveal all the improvements. Thats cans, cables, amps and mods. Two years ago I discovered that cds are delivered with a coating that is a dry lubricant that is necessary in manufacturing. It is a pretty thick coating. It also has a effect on the music. The coating is so thick that when I buy used cds that have noticeable surface scratches and I remove the coating the scratches disappear. You would think you would have to polish them off but they were in the protective coating. When this coating is removed the sound improves in a unreal way. I now refer to music quality with the coating intact as mud. If you are now listening to cds with this coating you are in for a big correct that, huge surprise. There are two easy ways to remove this coating. Polishing it in a scratch removal machine like a JFJ easy pro(i own one, pain in the butt) or use Xtreme Cables Online Store products. I have done 500+ cds with this product and every audiophile and plain music enthusiast that has A/B this process has a jaw drop. You cannot hear the real sound that is on a cd without this step. There are many other things that can be done to improve SQ but this is a mandatory step. The coating keeps the laser from reading all the info fast enough and you are actually listening to 30 to 50 % error correction. Think of it this way, if you are looking at a oil painting with sun glasses on and then you take the glasses off. You will see more. 2 to 10 K cd players have technology that helps correct this problem but is a waste of money if you don't have it. I don't care if you are listening on a $100 boom box or a $10k accuphase you will be blown away at the improvement. Now when this improvement is done do some comparisons in bit rate and you will not settle for mud. You will pick the higher rate. I have about 1200 songs on my 80gig imod and it is maxed out and people are blown away by how revealing the sound is. The optical enhancer works well also. This is one product you won't return for your money back.


Even if stuff like this were to work (I'm skeptical), would it even affect CD ripping?
post #158 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by chadbang View Post
128kbs? Eeek. Do yourself a favor, downsize collection, upgrade sample rate. I dont hear that much difference between 190kbs & 320kbs, but I sure as hell can pick out a 128kbs mp3.
Since I've never heard the difference between 128 and lossless, I see no reason to do this.
post #159 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by scompton View Post
Since I've never heard the difference between 128 and lossless, I see no reason to do this.
Huuuuuuuuuuuge difference, IMO.

128 sounds so compressed. Often flangy cymbals (and everything else). Sound stage is tiny... Clarity is down the drain.
post #160 of 372
well, i wasn't going to argue, but....
post #161 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by chadbang View Post
128kbs? Eeek. Do yourself a favor, downsize collection, upgrade sample rate. .
AFAIK, mp3 doesn't support sample rates over 48 kHz, and I doubt there's any advantage to upsampling source material (CD) from 44 to 48 just so you can say the rate's higher.
post #162 of 372
He said sample rate, but in relation to 128kbps, so he obviously meant compression rate.
post #163 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by scompton View Post
He said sample rate, but in relation to 128kbps, so he obviously meant compression rate.
Seems to be the case. I guess it really depends on one's equipment and ear, but I don't think I've ever talked digital music with anyone before that couldn't tell the difference between 128kpbs and something like 320 or lossless.
post #164 of 372
Here's a thread from a year and a half ago where no one who was willing to take the test could tell the difference.

http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f46/pu...r-ears-250237/

I tried both samples a couple of times and sent in my best result which was exactly 50%. Since I never heard a difference and was totally guessing, 50% is what could be expected.
post #165 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by scompton View Post
Here's a thread from a year and a half ago where no one who was willing to take the test could tell the difference.

http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f46/pu...r-ears-250237/

I tried both samples a couple of times and sent in my best result which was exactly 50%. Since I never heard a difference and was totally guessing, 50% is what could be expected.
2 people could tell actually. Those results came in after the OP stopped maintaining the thread. 3 if you include a previous success at the same bitrate by one poster.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › 192 kbs and 320 kbs, is there really a difference?