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 6

post #76 of 372
I deliberately chose music pieces that would use the full range so it's not that. I tested me and a friend so I guess both of us have poor ability to hear artifacts. I'm not going to sweat it anyway because if I can't hear a difference then there is no difference as far as I am concerned. I will continue to run ABX testing as I add/remove new equipment though to see if that is the reason. DT-990 are far more detailed than HD595 so if I those headphones fail the test too then I doubt I will ever hear a difference.
post #77 of 372
Yes.
post #78 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikita View Post
Yes.
Straight to the point...
post #79 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikita View Post
Yes.
i like this point, because its true, there is really a difference between two files with different bitrates


now if there is a perceptable increase in quality, thats subjective, and depends on the person, the equipment, source media, encoder used, etc
generally, the difference is "minor" for most people, at least from everything I've heard people say on head-fi (as in, most people say they don't notice a difference or a large difference, or links/whatever is provided to again support that), personally I agree with the subjective, variable nature of it, nothing is going to be fully black and white, so why should we attempt to whittle it down?
post #80 of 372
Yes, I agree. So people should stop lying and say they hear a night and day difference between 256kb/s mp3 and a flac file.
post #81 of 372
neighbors and spouses, is there really a difference?
post #82 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by melomaniac View Post
neighbors and spouses, is there really a difference?
Yes, especially when you're sleeping with them.
post #83 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Currawong View Post
Yes, especially when you're sleeping with them.
What if they are sleeping with each other and ask you to join?
post #84 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by melomaniac View Post
neighbors and spouses, is there really a difference?
There sure are!
Some a tall, some are short, some are skinny, some are round, some are old, some are young, .... you get the picture.
post #85 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by milkweg View Post
I've done ABX in foobar with 192kb/s mp3 and lossless wav on myself and a friend and we both failed to tell the difference. This was on HD595 headphones via an EMU 0404 used as a DAC and amp with a conection to an X-Fi via SPDIF coax. I used both classical and rock music too. Perhaps that equipment is not resolving enough to tell the difference?
I did a comparison between 128/160/192/320kbps of the same song using my W5000 and the difference was definitely there. Going from 128 to 192, the difference was HUGE. Bass tightened up considerably. The bad echoing of the 128 was gone. Clarity and details also increased.

However, going from 192 to 320 is a different story. The difference wasn't very dramatic, but I noticed that the 320 is more dynamic. The 192 sounded flat.

I had my roommate listen to them and he came to the same conclusion.
post #86 of 372
Well, I'm not sure about 192 and 320 kbps, but I can tell a difference between 128 and 320 kbps even with an iPod Nano and Senneheiser CX300s jammed in my ears, not the most of resolving of headphones. The difference, to spout a cliche, is not quite night and day, but is definitely cloudy twilight and decent midday. The 128s sound thin, without a back, so to speak: the lack of timbre leaves the music feeling hollow and lifeless; whereas the 320 kbps mp3s are more dynamic and have better timbre and detail: in short, they have more life.
post #87 of 372
on my modest system i came to the conclusion that the rise in quality from 128 to 192kbps is substantial, music at 128k sounds compressed, percussions lack impact, there's still some noticeable improvement from 192 to 320k, however in most of the cases i was not able to tell apart cd quality ( or lossless flac ) and 320 kbps mp3s, but it depends on the tracks....just my 2 cents
post #88 of 372
Theoretically, a 320kbps file holds 30% more information than a 192kbps file. Audibly, bass definition & overall soundstage & detail benefit although differences is not as a apparent as it is on paper.
Happy Holidays
Headphile808
post #89 of 372
Yes!
post #90 of 372
Totally agree, noticeable difference from 192-320. And you don't need a very good headphones for that. Obviously with them you will find the difference bigger! On my desktop system is much more perceptible than on ipod+senn cx300. There is sometimes only a small difference.

Personally, in 192 vs 320, i feel basses and medium frequencies not very far but i feel highs much brigther, brilliant and detailed. More spatial sound

Obviously a good rip process is important too, not just the final bitrate ;-)
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?