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 3

post #31 of 354
People think 320kbps = 1411. Nope. And yeah, I can certainly tell the difference between 192 and 320 also.

Lately, I've been trying to stay away from digital altogether, save for SACD.
post #32 of 354
Thread Starter 
Oh man, too many choices. Is there some special program you guys use to rip CD's? I just use WMP and I'll do a test with 192 WMAs and 320 MP3's and Lossless.

Though my setup isn't anything complicated, a Samsung P2 with either a pair of Sennheiser HD485's or soon to be Denon C551k's.
post #33 of 354
EAC and dbPowerAmp are good for ripping. EAC is free and not as easy to use and a little slower. Not that EAC is hard to use but dbPowerAmp is simple. Just one default setting should be changed in dbPowerAmp. With EAC you need to go through a configuration wizard.
post #34 of 354
Not sure if this would work... but bear with me and let me know what you think.

What if I were to create 2 files, both the exact same section of music from the same disc; one encoded at 320kbps and the other at 192.

I would then convert the files back to .wav and join them into one file so that one would play first, then the other.

I can create a poll on Head-Fi asking which section (the first or second part of the track) is which.
post #35 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by poo View Post
I can create a poll on Head-Fi asking which section (the first or second part of the track) is which.
I can't see a reason why not. Should be legible here, where DBT is allowed.
post #36 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by poo View Post
Not sure if this would work... but bear with me and let me know what you think.

What if I were to create 2 files, both the exact same section of music from the same disc; one encoded at 320kbps and the other at 192.

I would then convert the files back to .wav and join them into one file so that one would play first, then the other.

I can create a poll on Head-Fi asking which section (the first or second part of the track) is which.
Great Idea - go for it.

I would suggest - take a track and first rip it to WAV then edit it down to a suitable non copyright infringing fair use size then encode it twice once as 192 and once as 320. Then you are sure that the two segments will be the same size when you decode them back to WAV and also avoid alignment problems.

I would also suggest that (if possible) you set the low pass filter to be the same on both rips so there is no more obvious roll-off on the 192 copy, iirc they should be about the same anyway.
post #37 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by poo View Post
What if I were to create 2 files, both the exact same section of music from the same disc; one encoded at 320kbps and the other at 192.

I would then convert the files back to .wav and join them into one file so that one would play first, then the other.

I can create a poll on Head-Fi asking which section (the first or second part of the track) is which.
Sounds reasonable, but I'd imagine I'd be able to open the file in audacity and tell you which is which fairly quickly, without listening to the file

Quote:
Originally Posted by nick_charles View Post
I would also suggest that (if possible) you set the low pass filter to be the same on both rips so there is no more obvious roll-off on the 192 copy, iirc they should be about the same anyway.
It can still be pretty obvious: 192kbps vs. 320kbps. Both were done with LAME, with the lowpass on the 320kbps reduced to match the lowpass LAME chooses for 192kbps (19kHz).
post #38 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by LnxPrgr3 View Post
Sounds reasonable, but I'd imagine I'd be able to open the file in audacity and tell you which is which fairly quickly, without listening to the file
Yeah I thought of that too, but I can't think of any way to prevent it. I guess we have to hope that most people interested would have the decency to do the 'test' fairly and look at the wave forms later... It's a shame it can't be totally 'blind' though...
post #39 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by poo View Post
Yeah I thought of that too, but I can't think of any way to prevent it. I guess we have to hope that most people interested would have the decency to do the 'test' fairly and look at the wave forms later... It's a shame it can't be totally 'blind' though...
FooBar's ABX comparator would work - it does not identify the files - just ask folks to post screen shots of their tests...
post #40 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clincher09 View Post
I've always ripped my files in 192 kbs audio format, but some people will only accept 320 kbs. Is there really an audible difference? If I ripped all my music in 320 would there be a noticble difference in sound or will I just be using up more space? What about 192 kbs and windows lossless?

Also, is there a sound difference between mp3 and wma?

It depends on what codec and encoder you're using, how good your ears are, if you've trained your ears to hear artificats, etc.

You can go to hydrogenaudio.org to get the very best and most reliable information on the subject. Most of the information here is not reliable and is not adequately supported.

The differences are subtle enough so that ABX testing with a specialized software is the only way to go. You can go to hydrogenaudio for this. If you can hear the difference, more power to you. 192 kbps is getting in the range where many many people cannot hear a difference using most codecs, but a few truly can. The difference is generally much more subtle than say the differences between two pairs of speakers or two headphones, IMHO.

There are differences between the artifacts produced by WMA and MP3, but at some point they both dimish to the point of being inaudble.
post #41 of 354
Is it just me, I always found the differences to be extremely clear.
post #42 of 354
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve999 View Post
It depends on what codec and encoder you're using, how good your ears are, if you've trained your ears to hear artificats, etc.

You can go to hydrogenaudio.org to get the very best and most reliable information on the subject. Most of the information here is not reliable and is not adequately supported.

The differences are subtle enough so that ABX testing with a specialized software is the only way to go. You can go to hydrogenaudio for this. If you can hear the difference, more power to you. 192 kbps is getting in the range where many many people cannot hear a difference using most codecs, but a few truly can. The difference is generally much more subtle than say the differences between two pairs of speakers or two headphones, IMHO.

There are differences between the artifacts produced by WMA and MP3, but at some point they both dimish to the point of being inaudble.
Ok, well I really don't have a specialized music setup, just a nice DAP and nice headphones, and I have lame but I don't know if WMP uses that to rip music. Basically would it just be a waste of my time to re-rip all of my CDs to 320 to maybe hear a subtle difference?
post #43 of 354
Of course there is a difference.





128kbps worth of difference.
post #44 of 354
Yeap, I can hear a difference. Not between 128 and 192 though, I don't think.

Tangentially, I think this talk of using some objective (allegedly more scientific) measure instead of listening tests is kind of besides the point. I mean, we care about what we can hear. Whether or not 192 and 320 and lossless differ on some measure is irrelevant unless the difference is audibly discernible by the listener. Indeed, when it comes to the 129/192/320/lossless difference, I think the only thing that matters is whether you can hear a difference. Hard disk space is cheap.
post #45 of 354
Just a quick question, EAC or dBpoweramp for encoding MP3's and recommended codec? I've been using dBpoweramp for the last couple of years, but the highest for VBR LAME is 240kbp. So I assume for 320kbps, it should be CBR?

Also, how does Helix fare against LAME?
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?