Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Blind tests have shown that most cant hear the difference between 192kb/s and the original CD recording(320kb/s)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Blind tests have shown that most cant hear the difference between 192kb/s and the original CD... - Page 2

post #16 of 30
The only reason I keep everything in Apple Lossless is because I don't want to have two separate iTunes libraries. Truth be told, unless there's some sort of encoder problem (I used to hear weird flutter in vocals when I used Quicktime True VBR).
post #17 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gbjerke View Post
Whats the fuzz about saying that iTunes' 256 kb/s isn't good enough?
most people think ibuds are fine, so clearly everyone else should just stop making headphones clearly they arent needed
post #18 of 30
Nice thread, but where's the link to the tests? Also, the title is erroneous, as the CD bit rate is not 320kbps. Regardless, if you put both files into a program that can output a spectrograph you'll be able to visually see the difference.
post #19 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by deadly55 View Post
most can/can't who cares.. what matters is if they enjoy listening to their music.
why would we visit this site if we don't care?
post #20 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by donunus View Post
why would we visit this site if we don't care?
Wait... Do you mean to tell me that this is a site for Audiophiles!? Pfft. Next you'll be telling me that most of them enjoy headphones more than speakers..

Silly crazy person.
post #21 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Currawong View Post
if you put both files into a program that can output a spectrograph you'll be able to visually see the difference.
http://www.head-fi.org/forums/5785853-post42.html
post #22 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gbjerke View Post
Blind tests have shown that most cant hear the difference between 192kb/s and the original CD recording(320kb/s) Reply to Thread
Could you please provide links to the blind tests.

Thanks
post #23 of 30
Thread Starter 
I didnt try to make an argument here, I'm just saying that theres so many saying that 256 kb/s isnt enough to really new people. People just wanting an ipod, an amp and some headphones. And not pay 800$ for a cable.
post #24 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gbjerke View Post
I didnt try to make an argument here, I'm just saying that theres so many saying that 256 kb/s isnt enough to really new people. People just wanting an ipod, an amp and some headphones. And not pay 800$ for a cable.
So this thread was really about high priced cables????
post #25 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gbjerke View Post
I didnt try to make an argument here, I'm just saying that theres so many saying that 256 kb/s isnt enough to really new people. People just wanting an ipod, an amp and some headphones.
I think a lot of us would agree that the way a lot of people use their ipod, they don't really need anything more than 256 kbs.
post #26 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gbjerke View Post
I didnt try to make an argument here, I'm just saying that theres so many saying that 256 kb/s isnt enough to really new people. People just wanting an ipod, an amp and some headphones. And not pay 800$ for a cable.
How does paying $800 for a cable come into the picture of blind testing 192 vs. 320kbps audio files? They sure can have an iPod, amplifier and headphones without shelling out $800 for a cable...

By the way. Do you have any links to those blind tests you refer to?
post #27 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by 883dave View Post
Could you please provide links to the blind tests.
in that test, ppl prefer 128kb over 320 : Do 320kbps mp3 files really sound better? Take the test! | NoiseAddicts music and audio blog

read the comments, ppl think that 128 makes the sound more pleasant
post #28 of 30
I guess it comes down to the fact that most people are perfectly happy with 192kbps files on their iPod -> iBud rigs.
While some of us do not find such files transparent and go for 320kbps files, or even lossless.

To each their own!
post #29 of 30
Most people have never taken the time to sit down and really listen to real instruments being played by skilled musicians. The majority of musical knowledge most people possess goes about as far as ta-ta-teetee-ta. From my experience, all the subtleties of the instruments and amplification are stripped away by mp3 compression. It doesn't matter whether it's an orchestra or a punk band. "Most" people like the computer pitch-corrected vocals you hear in all the cookie cutter pop music today. Good techno has more textures than modern pop music.

Just look how many people go gaga over satellite radio and it's wonderful 48k stream. Let's not forget the fact that most people have never even heard the cd version of most music today. I know plenty of people that haven't purchased a cd since they purchased an ipod.
post #30 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by leeperry View Post
in that test, ppl prefer 128kb over 320 : Do 320kbps mp3 files really sound better? Take the test! | NoiseAddicts music and audio blog

read the comments, ppl think that 128 makes the sound more pleasant
I've heard that some people hate flac as symbols sound different then they do in mp3. the test song sucks imo. it's kinda flat. I think it's also a bad way to compare the 2 bitrates because i've never heard the song before. give em a song i know and i can hear the dif between 320 and flac.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Blind tests have shown that most cant hear the difference between 192kb/s and the original CD recording(320kb/s)