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 19

post #271 of 372
For myself, I cannot hear the difference between 245 VBR V0 Lame and CD. So I listen to that, easier to back up and store the music and very fast to rip form my CDs.

I no longer care if someone wants to argue if there is a difference, like krMathis said, it's your ears, you decide, that it.
post #272 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbd2884 View Post
I no longer care if someone wants to argue if there is a difference, like krMathis said, it's your ears, you decide, that it.
i personally would agree with this in the sense that if you can tell the difference between what ever sq setting you use and some other, then good for you

but in it's simplest, if it makes a person enjoy there music more cause it is in flac, over 320 kbs, then let them

it is pointless telling some one, to have there music in a format when it wont make them enjoy it any more or less.

ExplosiveDuck's post just sums things up really
http://www.head-fi.org/forums/5583377-post257.html

stop arguing bout it and just let a person enjoy there music in a format that they feel is best for them.
post #273 of 372
My two peneth,

Intresting thread, one of the few I managed to read all the way through.

There is a lot of chatter, here about abx, bit rates, artifacts, figures, etc, most of you are applying mechanical/statistical testing-measuring techniques to an organic instrument (the brain!)
The two do not sit happily together.

I've recently re-ripped my entire iPod to 320 cbr
(from 192 vbr) because I had accidently ripped a favorite album to 320 cbr and was stunned by the difference. However, I am working away at the moment and am able to listen to music a lot more critically.

I use a 5.5g iPod, silver LOD, mini^3 amp , Denom iems

I can no longer listen to 128cbr. This rate sounds dead/wooden, artifical
192vbr is good, but does not stand up well to critical listening.
320cbr sounds very good and is approaching my limit wrt lossless.
I would use lossless but my iPod is only 30gb

I remember when I built my amp, I looked around for opinions on the subjective sound quality improvement I could expect . The one Answer that stands out was from somebody who said "rather than an immediate effect on sq, he found that he would "miss" the amp if he went back to hp out.
Same thing for bit rates, listen to a full album with effort with the rip rates you want to compare for a more personal result

Audio is more subtle and organic than numbers and figures can describe

But I will say this, for those who cannot hear improvement above 128 cbr, either visit the quacks, go shopping, or take the wrapper of the speakers
128cbr sucks

But I will say
post #274 of 372
i would question just how dynamic you can get with portable stuff. Your average joe can and do notice differences in music between lossless and 192 or 128 when they first connect their ipod to a decent home rig (not headphones). But i would go along the lines that portable equipment may not significantly reproduce the difference.

The things to catch with people who claim big differences between formats, are hearing parts to the song they never heard before. as far as i know you will hear everything from 192kbps onward (check stereophiles article regarding lossy files). The difference is really in the dynamics not in the actual notes being played. It is certainly valid to argue that some parts of the song seem muffled or they just seem to lack something when dealing with lossy files, just be wary of individuals who make bold claims regarding hearing notes never been there before.

And lastly, if you have to "critically" listen to your music to really notice the difference, well then um.. yeah I'm just gonna leave it at that before I get banned for flaming.
post #275 of 372
Quote:


And lastly, if you have to "critically" listen to your music to really notice the difference, well then um.. yeah I'm just gonna leave it at that before I get banned for flaming.
Jeysus, grow up.

There is a hell of a difference between listening on a plane, or a subway, and sat in a nice quiet hotel room

Ffs
post #276 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbd2884 View Post
For myself, I cannot hear the difference between 245 VBR V0 Lame and CD. So I listen to that, easier to back up and store the music and very fast to rip form my CDs.

I no longer care if someone wants to argue if there is a difference, like krMathis said, it's your ears, you decide, that it.
Similar situation here, I performed a very epic test this weekend, and found (to my horror) that 245 VBR V0 Lame and FLAC sounded virtually the same! There was no artifacting or any discernable accoustic difference, even though I did encode the 245 VBR V0 Lame mp3 directly from the FLAC in foobar. I also flunked the ABX test (using Michael Jackson's "You Are Not Alone"), while using my Darkvoice and HD650s and Westone 3's. Double whammy right there.

This is quite an eye-opener for me. All these years of touting how great FLAC is over MP3s, I feel quite humbled that I'm unable to hear any difference between the two (when properly encoded). Maybe I should get my hearing checked... or maybe my equipment needs further upgrading? Sigh
post #277 of 372
Quote:
This is quite an eye-opener for me. All these years of touting how great FLAC is over MP3s, I feel quite humbled that I'm unable to hear any difference between the two (when properly encoded).
Welcome to reality. And no need to feel humbled, most of those claiming to hear a difference wouldn't do any better than you.
post #278 of 372
The easiest way to hear the difference between VBR0 and FLAC is on live or otherwise "spatial" recordings where there are reflections and reverberations off the environment. Spatial information seems to be the first casualty of compression, so, you hear the faithful reproduction of notes but lose the "space" around the instrument.

If I listen to techno I can't tell the difference but when I listen to say, Pink Floyd Pulse, I can usually pick off the VBR0.

If I listen to something like Goldfrapp, I can hear a huge difference between something encoded with WMP at CBR320 and LAME VBR0. The CBR's are sibilant.

LAME is a wonderful piece of software.
post #279 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILikeMusic View Post
Welcome to reality. And no need to feel humbled, most of those claiming to hear a difference wouldn't do any better than you.
True. I had a similar humbling experience when I did some ABX'ing.
Now I can fit much more on my portables and I enjoy the music just as much!

Recording quality is so much more important.
post #280 of 372
I am again away from home at the moment and thus i have been able to get some quality listening time with my now updated MP3 library. (from 192 vbr - 320 cbr)

I have to so say, its like i have a new bunch of records on my ipod.

instrument presentation has vastly improved, attack and decay are much much better.
The presentation of the musuc is now more
"seperate instruments making a organised sound"
rather than
" a homogenous noise sounding like organised sound"

I have ALAC tracs on the IPOd, and i was wondering, does the IPOD actually handle 320cbr better than lossless? ie, is the chip and codec better designed for lossy?

I'm wondering, because 320cbr sounds really wonderfull
post #281 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by robojack View Post
Similar situation here, I performed a very epic test this weekend, and found (to my horror) that 245 VBR V0 Lame and FLAC sounded virtually the same! There was no artifacting or any discernable accoustic difference, even though I did encode the 245 VBR V0 Lame mp3 directly from the FLAC in foobar. I also flunked the ABX test (using Michael Jackson's "You Are Not Alone"), while using my Darkvoice and HD650s and Westone 3's. Double whammy right there.

This is quite an eye-opener for me. All these years of touting how great FLAC is over MP3s, I feel quite humbled that I'm unable to hear any difference between the two (when properly encoded). Maybe I should get my hearing checked... or maybe my equipment needs further upgrading? Sigh
I think this is the case for 99.9% of the population, to be honest - especially people who insist on using lossless files for listening rather than archiving (which is what I use it for). The amount of research and development that has gone into LAME is pretty extraordinary. I spent a few hours a/b/x'ing V2 vs FLAC and simply could not do it. I switched to 192 vs FLAC and was able to a/b/x it better, but it still wasn't 100% of the time. I may have not found the most obvious song for a/b/x'ing but I was using 3 tracks a friend claimed he could tell the difference with.

While I can hear to about 18khz, I still couldn't hear a difference between them. It might be a matter of not knowing just exactly what to listen for, but if it means I can use V2 instead of FLAC for my listening files, I'm fine with it.

Ultimately, like things related to vision, an individuals' ability to hear details and nuances is going to vary as well. And, I think, it's a skill that can be developed. For example, this test: Munsell Hue Test was very easy for me to get 100% on, but that's also because I spent many years working in the design field, where color is exceptionally important. While I don't think it's particularly difficult to get 100%, some others may due to minor or severe color blindness or the inability to simply SEE the differences correctly. My "trained" eye has developed the ability. Additionally, individuals who are professional taste testers, or quality control in a brewery, for example, frequently have extremely honed palates, and are able to sense "off" flavors in much less concentration than the normal person.

In that manner, it makes sense to me that the ability to gain the ability to hear to a greater ability is something that can be developed as well. I just don't know how to do it!

Sorry for the philosophizing! Heading to work to rock out with the STX!
post #282 of 372
Most people can't tell the difference between mp3 files at the higher bitrates so just go what sounds good. I will recommend vbr recording because it gives you more bits when you need them.
post #283 of 372
Of course there is difference.
However, it does not mean that music from lossy file is always being less preferable.
The distortion cuz by the lossy compression sometimes makes the music different in a preferable way.
I remember that there is one song I was so touched when I listened in my old rip as 224kbps mp3.
When I listen to the CD and the new lossless rip, however, the much clearer and well presented sound somehow kill the touching part of that song.
post #284 of 372
no matter what bitrate, lossy is still lossy... no matter if i can hear the dif or not, the percption to the sound is still loosy... if you have good-best gears and able to grasp lossless, why settle for lossy format... go straight to the top if you can afford it...
post #285 of 372
I want VBR 400kbps, not 200kbps, nor lossless, and never CBR.

I don't care how many people can not ABX. If only one person in the whole world can ABX, it is one too many.

But lossless is only a mathematical illusion, not a physical reality. The real physical world is quantum and random. There is no such thing as an exact physical copy.

So VBR with high enough bitrate, maybe 400 to 500 kbps, will be physically the same as the original. Not an approximation, not just not ABX'able, but the same, in physical sense.
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?