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 7

post #91 of 372
So... who can prove it? Like, with a blind test?

Look at hydrogenaudio, for example. Except for rare cases ("problem samples" etc.) the consensus there is (afaik) that with current codecs even 128 is in most cases transparent.
post #92 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by fameh View Post
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.

...snip...

Obviously a good rip process is important too, not just the final bitrate ;-)
Same here. Can hear the difference with my Stax, but it also depends on the music I listen to...

Quote:
Originally Posted by xz123 View Post
So... who can prove it? Like, with a blind test?
...snip...
Well, I can hear it and low bitrate mp3's really annoy me as it just sounds like a bad recording to me. And there are numerous threads that show what kinda difference there is. I prefer FLAC, just to make sure I get the whole thing, even if I am not able to tell the difference between 192KBps MP3 and FLAC.

I just don't feel good listening to my music with the idea that I could be missing something
post #93 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by xz123 View Post
So... who can prove it? Like, with a blind test?

Look at hydrogenaudio, for example. Except for rare cases ("problem samples" etc.) the consensus there is (afaik) that with current codecs even 128 is in most cases transparent.
Where the key word is most cases!
hence in some cases there are an audible difference, and hence the answer is quite clear.
post #94 of 372
Yeah, but that's not the same as in "I hear the difference! My 128kbps tracks sound ****ty". That'd be more like "Some of my 128kbps tracks sound ****ty". (Which is acceptable and my experience, too)

@smuh: abx please.

(although I understand the need to use flac just to make sure you don't miss a thing)

--

I got all my music in ogg vorbis -q 6.5. Seems enough for me.
post #95 of 372
I have 3 letters for you - ABX.

What you think you hear, what you 'feel' is irrelevant if you want to talk science.

I've worked in sound research for years and people don't hear as well as they think they do. As far as I remember the only times we got amazing results were from people who were clueless about their abilities. People who boast about their hearing were most likely in general range.

Unless you ABX mp3 192 and mp3 320 and can get a consistent, solid 80+% then you can't tell the difference, plain and simple. I would guess that one out of a hundred people might actually pass this test but not other 99 (unless it's some really rare strange sample that's too obvious).

If you want to talk Placebo then obviously all of us would rather listen to FLAC since it sounds 'better'.

Don't fool yourself, until you ABX you can't comment on how you can hear. Mind plays tricks on you.
post #96 of 372
Don't forget that for many people, 192 kbps means 192 kbps CBR, which is probably ABXable against 320 kbps.
All Hydrogenaudio tests are done with VBR.
post #97 of 372
For some of my music, I believe I can hear the difference, for a considerable amount of others, I'm pretty sure I can't (or even if I could, the effort it would take to pay attention to such a thing, wouldn't allow me to enjoy the music). For a few, I bought the CDs because the mp3s I had didn't sound that good. When I got the CD, I found out it wasn't that much the fault of the mp3 =/.
post #98 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by xz123 View Post
Yeah, but that's not the same as in "I hear the difference! My 128kbps tracks sound ****ty". That'd be more like "Some of my 128kbps tracks sound ****ty". (Which is acceptable and my experience, too)
So true!
But if one (1) person can prove (ABX test) that he can hear an audible difference between 192 and 320Kbps, then that is enough to say that there is an audible difference.

Not anyone is able to hear it, but thats another discussion.
post #99 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by krmathis View Post
So true!
But if one (1) person can prove (ABX test) that he can hear an audible difference between 192 and 320Kbps, then that is enough to say that there is an audible difference.

Not anyone is able to hear it, but thats another discussion.
But that's why I'm an advocate of doing your own ABX tests. Even if 1 in 10 can hear a difference in a track and I can't, I don't want to waste the space on my portable player. Since I've never heard a difference between 128kbps VBR and lossless, I'm content to have all 30,000 tracks from my library on my iPod. I don't advocate that for everyone, just those who can't pass an ABX test. They're easy to do and I was very surprised that I couldn't hear the difference. I also advocate having a lossless archive.
post #100 of 372
well, there are 90 something posts I didn't read, but if you want to test it correctly, make 2 copies of a song with identical metadata (name, artist, etc...) Then listen on shuffle. If you have an iPod, you can press the center button twice and give the song a rating on the fly. Use this to determine if you can, without knowing, hear a difference.

I did this for 3 songs. On all 3 I could tell 128Kb/s from 196, but not 196 from higher. I also only have CX500s, though. Maybe with better headphones I could.

Personally, I think it's very much headphone dependent.

And I'd be amazed if anyone could not hear the difference between, say, 128 and 320. I found it very striking.
post #101 of 372
I'm a skeptic with anything audio related, but I think with a good Stax system, you would be able to tell the difference. Once you go high-end, you'll realize that CDs have a lot more information than just the sounds: there's space, position, timbre, tone, etc.

Once I get a good Stax system, I'll have someone blind test me
post #102 of 372
I've done most of my ABX tests with an SR-Gamma and I've never heard the difference between 128 and lossless.
post #103 of 372
Wow, I was playing with the ABX Comparator, and it's difficult to tell the difference between 100kbps VBR (encoded from FLAC) and FLAC.

Can anyone actually tell the difference with some certainty?

I've only tried Beethoven 9th - Molto Vivace with my laptop.
post #104 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere View Post
well, there are 90 something posts I didn't read, but if you want to test it correctly, make 2 copies of a song with identical metadata (name, artist, etc...) Then listen on shuffle. If you have an iPod, you can press the center button twice and give the song a rating on the fly. Use this to determine if you can, without knowing, hear a difference.

I did this for 3 songs. On all 3 I could tell 128Kb/s from 196, but not 196 from higher. I also only have CX500s, though. Maybe with better headphones I could.

Personally, I think it's very much headphone dependent.

And I'd be amazed if anyone could not hear the difference between, say, 128 and 320. I found it very striking.
Or you can just use ABX Comparator!
post #105 of 372
I really cant believe this has gone to 11 pages. I mean for everyone reading this wondering whats better here is what to do.
1. Rip from a CD a 192 track
2. Rip from a CD a 320 track
3. Listen
4. Realize they both suck in comparison to the CD

Really people just listen for your own ears, if you cant tell the diff good for you and save some space. You could argue all day on the internet but that will never chage what you hear in your own ears.
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?